Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Fish Landings (Icelandic Catch)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the catch of fish caught off Iceland in the area between the 12-mile limit and Iceland's unilateral 50-mile limit is landed in Scottish ports.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): In 1971 about 4 per cent. by weight of the United Kingdom catch taken in Icelandic waters was landed in Scotland.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would my hon. Friend agree that, while one should not minimise the danger to the fishing interests of this country from the action of Iceland, that answer underlines the importance to Scotland of the inshore fishing industry? In all his negotiations in Brussels, will he keep this very much in mind?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The inshore fishing industries are of vital importance not only to the economy of Scotland as a whole but also to those places where they are particularly active and represent a real force for development.

Mr. Grimond: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the real danger of the Icelandic limits is that they will divert fishing from those waters to waters outside the existing limits, around Orkney and Shetland? Has he any indication that there has been more trawling in those waters than previously? If he does not have that information now, will he guarantee to keep a close eye on the situation?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. Not only in our nearer waters but in other waters such as around the Faroes where the Scottish mid-water fleet fishes, the situation could be serious. We will keep an eye on this; I take the point about monitoring what happens there.

Economic Policy

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to initiate a study of the effect of regional development policies in Scotland on the rate of redundancies.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Scottish Office is taking to monitor the effects of the most recent set of Government policies on the Scottish economy.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The Scottish Economic Planning Board, on which are represented all the Departments concerned, keeps a continuing close watch on all aspects of the Scottish economy.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far, the present economic development policies do not seem to have had very much effect on the rate of redundancies? More important, will he arrange for the Government to make an early statement on the future of the regional employment premium which, as he knows, is worth £40 million to Scotland and is supposed to be phased out after 1974? Will he look at this so that incoming industrialists can be given some guarantee that this £40 million will not be taken away from Scotland after 1974?

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, I am sure that the whole House will have been pleased to see the improvement in the unemployment figures, particularly last month. On the second point, REP is due to run the course—seven years—set for it by the previous Government. Industrialists know that it is due to be phased out after September, 1974, but it is still too early to know exactly what conditions there may be then.

Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, from the information he has been given, that as regards male unemployment Scotland's progress is much


poorer than that of the Midlands? Does he not agree that this is because the Government have effectively demolished IDC policy as a relocation instrument during a period of growth?

Mr. Campbell: No, I utterly refute that. The IDC policy is still a mainstay of the system. All that has been done is to change it to suit present circumstances.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest dangers to employment and prosperity in the west of Scotland is the reorganisation plans of the British Steel Corporation? Can he give a clear assurance that he will be fully consulted before any decision is made by the Government on this matter?

Mr. Campbell: The British Steel Corporation has placed its long-term investment plans before the Government and these are being considered. The chairman of the corporation has made certain statements about redundancies, which the House knows about.

Mr. Ross: Exactly what advice has the right hon. Gentleman had from his advisory council? Had it anything to say about the relaxation of IDC policy or the likely loss, from the point of view of attracting and assisting labour-intensive industry, caused by the disappearance of REP?

Mr. Campbell: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Scottish Economic Council. There, all these matters are discussed and different views put forward, but the result is that I get advice from distinguished and leading Scots in different sectors of industry, trade and the unions.

Pensioners

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Scottish Pensions Association.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): My right hon. Friend has received no request for a meeting with the Scottish Old Age Pensions Association, to which I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the thousands of pensioners from Scotland who are lobbying Parliament today regard the Government's £10 hardship payment as derisory almost to the extent of being insulting? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Utter rubbish."] Would not the Minister agree that it is time we made a break from the policy of successive Governments of paying pensions which barely provide subsistence for pensioners? Will he do everything he can to persuade his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet to do everything possible to alleviate the hardship and poverty which exists amongst Scottish pensioners?

Mr. Monro: All hon. Members in the House, the Government and the Opposition, want to do their very best for old-age pensioners. Indeed the Government have made very drastic steps forward compared with the situation before 1970. I shall not weary the House by reciting the long list of improved benefits, but certainly the Government have this matter very much in their hearts.

Mr. Sproat: Is not the Opposition's attitude particularly sickening in its hypocrisy in view of the fact that when they were in office they were asked to institute pensions for the over-80s but refused, and they were asked for an annual review of pensions, which they refused? Will my hon. Friend seek to emphasise at any meeting he may have with pensioners' associations that the buying power of the pension is now higher than ever and in spite of inflationary pressures is 12 per cent. higher than when the previous Government were in office?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for driving home the point I was making. Members of the present Government, and indeed all Scottish Members in the House today, will be seeing old-age pensioners today and I am sure that we shall make these points very clear.

Mr. Eadie: In the light of the information the hon. Gentleman has received from the Government side of the House, is it not necessary that he meets the Lobby to try to get acquainted with the facts and the realities of how old-age pensioners are at present trying to live with the terrifically high cost of living we are experiencing?

Mr. Monro: I certainly expect to see old-age pensioners in the Lobby today. I shall be making to them the points I have made in the Chamber to explain how much more the present Government have done for pensioners than the previous Government did.

Scottish Assembly on Unemployment

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received an invitation to be represented at the Second Scottish Assembly on Unemployment on 15th January, 1973; and if he has asked to address the Assembly.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have received an invitation, as a Member of Parliament, but for the reasons which I explained fully to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 27th January in relation to the first such conference [Vol. 829, c. 521] it would not be appropriate for me to attend.

Mr. Eadie: Why not?

Mr. Campbell: The General Secretary on that occasion informed me that the difficulty about a Minister attending was clearly understood.

Mr. Eadie: But if the right hon. Gentleman were to change his mind and a specific invitation was made to him to address the conference, what would be his attitude towards informing the conference on the question of unemployment and about employment prospects for the Scottish people this winter? Would he have to inform them that his Government and he were so apathetic that as yet they have not worked out a winter work programme in order to alleviate the scandalous level of unemployment in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, the object of the last conference was stated to be to prepare proposals and demands for presentation to the Government. It is difficult for a Minister belonging to that Government to take part in preparing such proposals to be made to the Government. That was perfectly well understood. Regarding the second point, I have already referred to the recent unemployment trends, which are, fortunately, favourable for Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's previous promises in relation to Hunterston, in the event of the British Steel Corporation decision going against Hunterston would he not then resign and be able to visit the assembly in a private capacity?

Mr. Campbell: I hope that my views about Hunterston are well known and have not been too much twisted by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members. They have been well set out in HANSARD and elsewhere over the last three years or so. They are that I believe that this valuable site should be used in the best possible ways for Scotland, whatever industries or combination of industries may be involved.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Secretary of State reconsider the question of his attendance at the assembly? Is there not a clear case for him to attend as Secretary of State at this the second assembly? In view of the very wide-ranging and representative nature of the audience, is it not a very appropriate gathering which he should address on this subject?

Mr. Campbell: This is a matter for those arranging the assembly. It has certainly not been the view of the General Secretary of the STUC, because of the aims which he has had for the previous conference and, I believe, for this one. This is a matter for them. But there are other occasions when I am able to put the Government's views.

Rents

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private tenants qualify for a rent allowance.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): Some 150,000 tenants of privately-owned unfurnished accommodation in Scotland will come within the scope of the scheme for rent allowances, but how many of them will qualify for allowances cannot be estimated because particulars of rent levels and the income of tenants are not available.

Mr. Hamilton: Bearing in mind the freeze imposed by the Government, may we have an assurance that the tenants who


are eligible will receive the rent allowance? As the Minister is aware from correspondence I have had with him, some landlords are now endeavouring to increase their rents by 300 per cent., and in two cases by 1,000 per cent. That is because of the Act which is now on the Statute Book. Is the Minister now prepared to reconsider the situation and to have the Act put in a freeze until such time as the country gets on its feet again?

Mr. Younger: If increases of that sort are being imposed on tenants, they are under the previous Government's Act and not under the present Government's Act. The law of the land states that rent allowances will be brought in on 1st January, and it is certainly my intention that the law of the land should be carried out and that all private tenants should be eligible for this rent allowance from 1st January. This is a much-needed reform and it is a pity that it was not introduced a long time ago.

Mr. MacArthur: May we have a positive assurance that no private tenant anywhere in Scotland will lose any of this allowance because his local authority is defying the Act?

Mr. Younger: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I can only say that if any local authorities are thinking of defying the Act and not introducing rent allowances, they will cause considerable hardship to many of the inhabitants in their areas and will not lightly be forgiven. I hope they will think very carefully about that.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Does the figure of 150,000 tenants include the 90,000 covered in the Act and who are to be brought into the fair rents system, or were to be brought into it, in three sections, or is 150,000 the entire total? Secondly, when will the Minister introduce the Bill to amend the fair rent Act and bring it into line with the recommendations made by the previous committees and through correspondence he has had?

Mr. Younger: I am not quite sure of the point to which the hon. Gentleman was referring latterly about bringing it into line. A Bill is due to be introduced to extend rent allowances to furnished accommodation as well as unfurnished accommodation. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point, we estimate—it

can only be an estimate—that about 150,000 tenants will qualify for rent allowance, but if there should be more the money is available and I hope that they will get it.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that new town rents are substantially in excess of average council rents, he will now instruct the development corporations to freeze existing rents to the end of 1974.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. The higher average house rents in the new towns reflect both the relatively modern nature of the housing stock in these towns and their greater amenity and better environment.

Mr. Hamilton: The Under-Secretary must know that that is not right and that there are modern council houses comparable to the modern houses in new towns where the rents are completely different. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in some new towns in Scotland rents are more than double the average council rents in Scotland? In those circumstances, ought not the tenants to have the kind of preferential treatment suggested in the Question?

Mr. Younger: The average rents in new towns are in general higher than the average rent in local authorities. This reflects, in exactly the same way as it did under the Labour Government, the different nature of the housing, the better amenity standard and the newer nature of the house. All new town tenants are fully protected against hardship by the national rent rebate scheme, which means that nobody will be expected to pay a rent he cannot afford.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is not the wide differential which now exists the direct result of the Labour Government's forcing new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association to charge higher rents while leaving local authorities to charge what rents they liked?

Mr. Younger: I well remember what my hon. Friend said at the time, when he came out strongly against that policy. One of the effects of the new Housing Finance Act is to narrow the gap in future years between new towns and the


local authorities. As all tenants are protected by rent rebate schemes, it is certain that they will all be protected from any hardship.

Mr. Lambie: is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Irvine new town rent levels are two and a half times the average rent in Scotland? Are not these tenants entitled to protection against further increases if wage rates are to be frozen?

Mr. Younger: It very much depends upon whether one takes the view that new town rents are too high or local authority rents are too low. This is exactly the same policy as was followed by the Labour Government, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) knows full well.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that all tenants who are or will be entitled to rent rebates or rent allowances under the Housing Act actually receive them.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend arranged for the introduction of the rent rebate scheme by 1st October to be extensively publicised in the Press, on television and by leaflets. The introduction of rent allowances by 1st January will be similarly publicised. In addition, local authorities are required to publicise the rent rebate and allowance schemes, and landlords are required to make details of the rent allowance scheme available to private tenants.

Mr. Taylor: Has my hon. Friend noted from details of the cases which I have sent him that some of my constituents are, over a five-year period, facing rent increases of as much as 500 per cent. as a result of the Act introduced by the Labour Government in 1969? Would it not be shameful if the Labour-controlled Glasgow Corporation were to deprive these tenants who cannot afford the increases of the rent allowances provided under our Act?

Mr. Younger: I fully agree with my hon. Friend and I wish to make clear, endorsing what he has said, that any such increases as he now mentions are taking place under the Act passed by the last Labour Government, in which no provision whatever was made for rent

allowances for those who could not afford to pay. It would be a crying shame if, added to that, the rent allowances were not made available from 1st January, as I very much hope they will be.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one matter which is causing considerable concern is the sheer complexity of the rent allowance form, which many people, especially older people, find very difficult to fill in? Will he give serious thought to instructing local authorities, particularly some of the larger authorities, to consider making special provision to assist people in the filling up of these forms?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. We had fairly extensive debate about it on the Report stage of the Bill, when hon. Members on both sides, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), made some helpful suggestions. We thought we had made the form reasonably simple, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that rent officers are careful to do all they can to help people. However, if he has any specific cases which he would like to put to me, I shall be glad to do my best to help in what I know is a difficult problem.

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average rent charged in Dundee by the Dundee Corporation per house per week, and by how much this fell short of the figure necessary under the terms of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Younger: The average annual standard rent at 28th November, 1971, was £87·13. My right hon. Friend is considering certain information already provided to him by the corporation about its current position in relation to the 1972 Act.

Mr. Doig: Is the Minister aware that Dundee Corporation has already agreed to the increases up to the maximum permitted under the Act? It has already agreed to apply the rebate scheme retrospectively from 1st October. Is he aware that the people in Dundee consider that they are being very badly treated compared with Edinburgh, which is in a similar situation?

Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but the situation in Dundee is complex and my right hon. Friend is considering it in the light of extra information given to him by the corporation.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council tenants will pay the same or less in rent following the introduction of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Younger: Many council tenants should pay the same rent or less allowing for rebates, but I do not have comprehensive information about their numbers.

Mr. MacArthur: In other words are not those local authorities which are defying the Act denying help to many of their tenants? Can my hon. Friend give any examples to show how much less tenants should be paying now than previously?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I could give many examples, but perhaps I may instance a family with four children living in Glasgow. With a gross income of £25 a week, and occupying a house with a standard rent of £2, they would pay only 81p under the Act but they are paying £1·22 under the Glasgow scheme. If the same family lived in Airdrie it would have paid the full standard rent of £2 before implementation of the Act, because there is no rebate scheme there, but under the Act they will now pay a rebated rent of only 81p.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the continued use of these highly selective statistics, which has marked the whole campaign on the legislation, has debased the language of government in Scotland? Is he aware that thousands of council tenants in Edinburgh, many of them pensioners, had their rents increased by £1 a week this week? Does he not think that rather than trying to provoke the non-implementing authorities into submission, thus causing all the bitterness and industrial confrontation that would ensue, it would be far better to use the freeze as an excuse for taking a new initiative to reach a compromise with those authorities?

Mr. Younger: These statistics are facts, and they are not selective facts of those

benefiting from the reductions. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the Act has been designed to prevent hardship. It is time he realised that.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many people will pay more rent? How many people in, say, the burgh or Ayr. in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, who were receiving rent rebates will still pay a higher rent now that the burgh has changed over to the Government rent rebate system?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman should update his figures, following the improvement in the needs allowances. I have not the precise figure to answer his question on how many people will pay more in rent, but no one will pay more if he cannot afford it. That is the whole point of the rent rebate scheme, which the right hon. Gentleman should realise.

Opera House, Edinburgh

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take about the financing of the Opera House in Edinburgh, in view of the inquiry being conducted into this matter by the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The corporation recently sent me revised proposals for the project which involve a substantial increase in estimated cost and these I am now considering. According to Press reports, an investigation committee has been appointed by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland but I have no reason to believe that this action has any bearing on my consideration of the corporation's proposals.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the time-scale for this consideration by the Scottish Office?

Mr. Campbell: I hope to be able to inform the corporation soon about its proposals.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would it not be helpful to have a meeting between the officials of Edinburgh and of Sydney, Australia, in view of Sydney's considerable experience of the cost of building an opera house?

Mr. Campbell: I agree that one can always benefit from the experience of others. I am also glad to say that there


is good news in Inverness, where a concert hall will, we hope, be completely built within three years.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to Alva Town Council regarding its letter on revenues from North Sea oil.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) on 9th November, which indicated the terms of the replies sent to the local authorities including Alva Town Council which had made representations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this subject.—[Vol. 845, c. 246.]

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State concede that he has given a figure for revenues available to the Government from North Sea finds? If he has a figure for revenues he must have a figure for total supply from the fields and, therefore, for the total cost of oil. In view of all the circumstances, would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to produce a White Paper so that the House can be made aware of all the details it needs to ascertain the extent of these finds and their effect on the Scottish and United Kingdom economies?

Mr. Campbell: I think that the hon. Gentleman, who has followed these matters more closely than most, knows that we have made an estimate for 1980. We cannot go beyond that. There are large areas of the sea-bed, particularly round the West, which have not yet been explored. Given the information available now, and on the basis of the present level of prices and other factors, we have made a rough estimate of the total revenue in rents and royalties in 1980. That is what we have been able to do in an effort to supply the House and the general public with as much information as we can. I have great hopes that much more oil will be discovered in the years to come and that beyond 1980 there may well be considerably more than we now estimate.

Mr. Brewis: May I support the request made by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) for more

information about Scottish oil? When will the first oil be landed in Scotland and when will any royalties become payable?

Mr. Campbell: The first company to have made its plans expects the first oil to be pumped ashore in two years' time. That will be when the royalties from the oil as opposed to gas from the North Sea would start to be paid.

Dr. Miller: May I commend the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) for referring to these finds as Scottish oil and not by the general term of North Sea oil? Is the Secretary of State prepared to recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that the whole question of Scottish oil be placed under public ownership and control?

Mr. Campbell: I noted that the Labour Party conference passed a resolution to the effect that the oil industry should be nationalised. That is a very gloomy outlook for those whose jobs depend upon the work on the oil rigs now and the oil servicing and all the shore-based installations and other work which is about to start.

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State should not need to be reminded that the oil is already nationalised, thanks to the Continental Shelf Act passed by a Conservative Government; so he should not burke the question of nationalisation. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question about the desirability of having a White Paper on this whole subject? Further, would it not be a good idea for the whole subject to be referred to the Scottish Special Select Committee so that we can get down to all the facts available and make projections about the importance of the subject to Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) was referring to nationalisation of the industry, not of the oil itself. The Labour Party conference appears to have endorsed the idea of nationalising the whole industry. That is a poor lookout for all those whose jobs depend on it in the future.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State now answer my question?

Mr. Campbell: The question of Select Committees is not for me. We are,


through the usual channels, making some proposals on the subject of a debate.

Mr. Ross: I said nothing about a debate. For a debate to be useful we should have the right information. Will the Secretary of State reconsider his answer about the publication of a White Paper on this whole subject and the Government's attitude to it? Then a debate would be realistic.

Mr. Campbell: When this question has arisen before I have said that I am prepared to consider the publication of a White Paper, but it affects other Ministries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is the Minister most concerned. The right hon. Member has put this point before and I have answered it before.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to set up a working party of industrialists, economists and planning specialists to consider how best Scotland could benefit from oil revenues.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I do not think that a special working party is necessary. North Sea oil developments are already bringing major benefits in terms of employment. As a result of Government decisions, Scotland is also getting an accelerated programme of investment in roads, harbours and houses in advance of oil from the Scottish part of the Continental Shelf starting to flow.

Mr. Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now a widespread view in Scotland, among members of all parties and of none, that Scotland is not by any means certain to get the best possible yield out of the natural oil that has been discovered? In view of this fact, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that some machinery independent of the Government, such as I have suggested in the Question, could properly be set up to consider what improvements could be made and the benefits that Scotland could get from the oil?

Mr. Campbell: The setting up of new machinery and new bodies does not necessarily solve problems. We have none the less set up the Standing Conference. This has met a particular need of many of those concerned, and the new Scottish Industrial Development Office will have a

particular task in helping the oil industry in giving advice and taking initiatives. This is another body that has been set up this year.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems concerning oil revenues is that many of the resources seem likely to flow to American firms—fabricators and others—which have been encouraged to establish themselves in Scotland with the benefit of grants to do things they would have done in any case, and that those grants have been encouraged by bodies like the Scottish Council and the STUC which the hon. Gentleman wishes to encourage my right hon. Friend to consult further?

Mr. Campbell: I believe the fact that some of these firms with their American expertise have decided to set up in Scotland rather than continue operating in the United States, or to set up on the other side of the North Sea, is of benefit to Scotland. I invite my hon. Friend and others to visit Nigg Bay, for example, Ardersier, because there will be about 2,000 new jobs there involving the sort of skills in which we in Scotland excel, such as steel construction and welding.

Mr. Millan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what expert advice on the oil industry is available to him in the Scottish Office?

Mr. Campbell: Within the Scottish Office we have a number of people, in the regional development division, who are concerned largely with dealing with oil companies. Within the Government we have our own petroleum experts; they are experts in the petroleum industry. One of these is due to move north and set up in Scotland.

Local Government Boundaries

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Advisory Committee on Local Government Boundaries.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The committee has concluded its initial consideration of proposals for electoral areas. Draft schemes giving effect to its recommendations will be sent to local authorities shortly for publication. The committee


will later re-examine the proposals in the light of any further observations received by my right hon. Friend's Department and then submit its final recommendations to him.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware from previous correspondence that there is serious concern about the manner in which the advisory committee has conducted its business, that proposals for district council boundaries were asked for initially from the local authorities, that the local authorities submitted their proposals and that the advisory committee, rather surprisingly, favoured proposals sent in by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association Central Office? Does not the Under-Secretary agree that the advisory committee was ill-advised to favour those proposals when no political party was invited to submit its ideas?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have explained matters to the hon. Gentleman in a letter. Copies of the Department's provisional proposals were sent to the main political party organisations in Scotland and observations were received from the different parties. Any observations, from whatever source, were submitted to the advisory committee. That committee is totally independent and the Secretary of State has not sought in any way to influence its conduct.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Hunterston

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive a copy of the final report by international consultants commissioned by the Hunterston Development Company to examine the feasibility and viability of Hunterston for commercial and industrial development.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The consultants appointed by the Hunterston Development Company have submitted the first part of their final report. The full report will be completed shortly and will then be studied by the company and the Government.

Mr. Lambie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people in Scotland regard the Hunterston Development Company as a Tory Party front organisation designed to get the Secretary of State off the hook concerning industrial development at Hunterston? Will he guarantee that we will get the final report before the Government make their final recommendations on the future plans for British steel? Will he guarantee to the House that he, as Secretary of State, will stick to his original promise and bear in mind that we want a British Steel Corporation integrated steel unit in Hunterston and nothing else?

Mr. Campbell: As I explained before, my promise has been that Hunterston will be used for the best possible purposes for Scotland. That is what I have been saying for three and a half years. The problem is finding the best industries in combination for Scotland to go there. The hon. Gentleman's version of the Hunterston Development Company is, I must says, a very new and most extraordinary one.

Mr. Edward Taylor: In considering the future of Hunterston, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that unless we can continue to have a wide range of steel products manufactured in Scotland, we could be hit very hard by the new Common Market pricing system?

Mr. Campbell: Apart from what the hon. Gentleman has said, referring no doubt to the basing point system, I recognise that it is one of the important factors that the steel-using industry in Scotland should have supplies and that there should, so far as possible, be a balanced steel industry as my hon. Friend has indicated.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Scottish Office has a financial concern here. There has already been an interim report. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we asked for its publication and we were advised—I think I have a letter from the Prime Minister to this effect—that it would be inappropriate to publish it at that time but an assurance was given that a final report would be published? Is that still the case?

Mr. Campbell: We have assumed that the final report will be published. The


Hunterston Development Company has views on this, and those views will have to be taken into account.

Road Accidents (M8 and A74)

Mr. James White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many accidents occurred on the M8 and A74 in 1970, 1971 and 1972, to the latest available date.

Mr. Younger: It would be misleading to compare the absolute number of accidents on these two roads as A74 is over twice as long as M8. In 1970, 1971 and 1972 up to 31st August, however, there were, respectively, 41, 59 and 32 injury accidents on M8, representing an accident rate of 0·41 accidents per million vehicle miles. The corresponding figures on A74 were 167, 158 and 160, representing an accident rate of 0·6 accidents per million vehicle miles.

Mr. White: May I recommend to the hon. Gentleman a recent report in the Scottish Daily Express, that the time is long overdue for A74 to be brought up to motorway standards? Is he aware that people driving 300 miles from the south, having been brainwashed by motorway conditions, suddenly find themselves on a dual carriageway? Is he further aware that sheep cross it and that if a vehicle breaks down there is no hard shoulder? If the Government are not prepared to bring this road up to motorway standards will they at least provide a hard shoulder and a crash barrier in order to try to cut down loss of life?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. So far as I am concerned any accident is to be deplored, and I would always take what steps I could to make accidents less likely to happen. It is not, however, the case that A74 is a particularly bad road for accidents. The average is certainly slightly higher than it is on M8, but it is almost exactly the same as the average for motorways generally, and it is rather below the average for dual carriageways generally.
However, I have recently written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and told him that we are considering a programme of improvements on A74 in order to reduce the number of accidents even further.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. I apologise for intervening at Question Time, Mr. Speaker, but may I draw to your attention to the chaotic situation at St. Stephen's entrance and the fact that constituents of mine have been prevented from coming in? Indeed, a policeman even attempted to prevent my coming in. I submit that it is intolerable that thousands of old people should be made to stand in these conditions in the cold, and I would be most grateful if you could take some action to enable my constituents to enter, and alleviate the appalling conditions at St. Stephen's entrance.

Mr. Speaker: I will take note of what the hon. Member has said and I will see what can be done about it.

Sir J. Gilmour: Will my hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT how he arrives at the accident rate per million vehicle miles? I am afraid I cannot understand it.

Mr. Younger: I apologise to my hon. Friend. It is rather a difficult thing to get across in an oral answer. The simple calculation is designed in order to be able to compare one road with another. It is the number of accidents which take place per million vehicle miles on a particular road. I think it is easy to understand. The object is to be able to compare roughly the situation on one road with another.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present arrangement for investigating the cause of accidents on these major roads in Scotland? If he is not satisfied, will he consider setting up a traffic accident unit to make inquiries and discover the true causes of many accidents?

Mr. Younger: I am not aware of any difficulties arising from this. We have a very close liaison with the police on the subject, and if there are any particular cases which the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to bring to my attention I shall be glad to investigate them.

Transport Planning (Glasgow)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has received from Glasgow Corporation concerning the use of old Glasgow Central low-level line and


tunnels; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the delay in giving effect to the Greater Glasgow Transport Study proposals and in particular the reopening of the central low-level railway line; when approval can be expected; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: Good progress is being made in implementing the recommendations concerning roads. Those concerning railways depend on detailed schemes first being put forward by British Rail. My right hon. Friend has approved a 75 per cent. grant for the resignalling and electrification of the Hamilton Circle line and has offered British Rail financial assistance towards the cost of the studies it still needs to undertake on the other recommended projects, including the Central low-level line.
Glasgow Corporation, which has expressed strong support for the early implementation of the transport recommendations, is fully aware of all this.

Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he bear in mind that the Transport Act, 1968, gave the Government considerable power to influence developments in urban transport, including in particular the shifting of the balance of investment from private transport to public passenger transport? Will he look again at his powers under that Act since, although the Act was, I believe, a big breakthrough, we have perhaps learned enough now to update it, and force local authorities and passenger transport authorities to think more in terms of public passenger transport?

Mr. Younger: These are early days yet for the Glasgow PTA, and I very much hope that it will be giving thought to that aspect of transport planning. At present we are making substantial progress with implementation and we are in close contact with British Rail about it. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to investigate any particular points, I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Hannan: If the Minister is paying attention to the proposals arising from the Greater Glasgow Transport Study, why was priority given to other matters

over one for which the study asked—namely, the reopening of the Central line? This line is an asset which is the envy of many of our cities and it is essential for the integration of transport within the city. What were the reasons for refusing priority to the reopening of that line in the four proposals which were put to the Minister?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman may remember, Volume 4 of "Planning for Action" put as the first priority the electrification of the Hamilton Circle line. That was originally put to us as being the first priority, and we therefore approved it—I hope in good time. We are now considering the next phase.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my hon. Friend do his best to get the suburban lines hack in Edinburgh and to throw out the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question relates to Glasgow.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many working parties, commissions or other organisations are examining proposals for local government reform on which the Secretary of State has representatives; if he will list their remits and functions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Seven. With permission, I shall publish a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Brown: A fairly lengthy list, I suppose. Has the right hon. Gentleman any original ideas—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, one never knows, and there is always hope. Has the right hon. Gentleman any original ideas as to the best and most effective way of dealing with the reports of the bodies which he has mentioned and for making available reports from other bodies, professional and the like, on which he has no representation, and for ensuring that permanent committee room facilities will be available, complete with visual aids, for those of us who will be on the Committee, so that we may make a good job of the Bill?

Mr. Campbell: I shall do all I can to assist the hon. Gentleman and other


hon. Members. However, as he will see from the list which will be published, the working parties cover such matters as the effects of local government reform on regulations for the police service, the lay

Title of Group
Function


Working Party on the Lay Summary Courts.
To examine arrangements for justice of the peace courts in Scotland and make proposals for changes in these arrangements so that these courts can deal with criminal cases at present dealt with in burgh and justice of the peace courts; and to make suggestions as to changes in the distribution of criminal cases between sheriff and lower summary courts to achieve a more efficient system of summary justice.


Working Party on Civic Government
To consider the provision to be made for transferring regulatory powers of existing authorities to the new authorities.


Police Advisory Board for Scotland: Working Party on Local Government Reform
To consider matters arising out of local government reorganisation requiring legislation or regulations affecting the police service.


Conference on Local Elections Law
To consider various questions arising on local government elections under the new structure.


Committee of Officials on Electoral Procedures
To consider detailed changes required to the Scottish local elections rules and arrangements for elections in 1974.


Local Government Finance Advisory Panel
To assist the Secretary of State's departments in drawing up advice for the Secretary of State on the financial aspects of local government reorganisation.


Advisory Group of Officials on Study of Scottish Local Authority Management Structures
To direct and supervise the study on management structures being conducted by the Scottish Local Government Central Advisory Unit on Management Structures.

Falkirk Royal Infirmary (Maternity Facilities)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions have taken place with a view to improving maternity facilities at Falkirk Royal Infirmary.

Mr. Monro: There have been discussions between officers of my right hon. Friend's Department, the Western Regional Hospital Board and the board of management about maternity facilities at Falkirk Royal Infirmary. The board of management has been asked to consider the use of maternity facilities at Stirling Royal Infirmary to ease the pressure on those at Falkirk. The long-term requirements for maternity facilities in the Cumbernauld-Falkirk area are being examined by the regional board to enable planning of the new development in band IV of the major hospital building programme to proceed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the suggestion that maternity facilities at Stirling Royal Infirmary should be used to relieve the position at Falkirk Royal Infirmary may well mean that mothers-to-be have about 18 miles

summary courts and so on. These are individual subjects which have to be looked into as a result of the proposed reorganisation.

Following is the list:

to travel before they get to Stirling Royal Infirmary? Although this may appear to the hon. Gentleman to be a local problem, I hope he will acknowledge that the effects of the bad maternity facilities at Falkirk are fairly widespread and urgent action is required on the amenities which I have mentioned.

Mr. Monro: I could not accept that there are bad facilities at Falkirk, although I acknowledge that there is pressure for accommodation. I hope that any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who may have to go to Stirling will appreciate that this is a temporary measure and that we are pressing on as fast as we can with the planning of new developments in that area.

Mr. Baxter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the women who have their babies in Stirling Maternity Hospital are discharged within three days, which presupposes that there is not a great deal of latitude in that hospital for taking people from Falkirk?

Mr. Monro: I note the point which the hon. Gentleman makes, which is part of the subject matter of discussion with the board of management. I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about


discharge in three days. My information is that the average period is much nearer eight days.

Football Grounds (Licensing)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take account of the adverse financial situation confronting football clubs when introducing legislation to license sports grounds; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Lord Wheatley referred to this matter in his report, and we shall bear it in mind in preparing future legislation.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the hon. Gentleman realise that licensing may well mean the rebuilding of stands and terracing, of exits and entrances, and so forth, at prodigious cost, which would not only put First Division clubs in jeopardy but probably put some Second Division clubs out of the game altogether? Will he therefore try to have the cost spread over a period of time to ensure that a team like Albion Rovers, with attendances of less than 1,000 a game, will not be asked to provide the same facilities as Glasgow clubs which accommodate upwards of 70,000 at a game?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. We have been in correspondence about it, and I am glad to see that he is displaying his club colours on the Floor of the House. The Government have not yet come to a final conclusion on their proposals following Lord Wheatley's recommendation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the points he has made have been raised with us also by the representatives of the Football Association and Football League with which we have been in touch, and we shall certainly bear them in mind. However, we must bear in mind also the vital need to safeguard the public who attend these matches.

Mr. Sproat: If and when my hon. Friend introduces legislation to license football grounds, will he make certain that a provision is included to compel clubs to make adequate provision for supporters in wheelchairs?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall draw that to the attention of those concerned.

Mr. Ross: When legislating on this matter, will the Minister bear in mind that the financial situation of the clubs, which is already precarious, will be made worse by the introduction of VAT? If he searches his postbag this morning, he will find there—admittedly, not from a Scottish club—relevant information on the point from Aston Villa.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman should know that value added tax matters are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We must have concern for the safety of the public as well.

Malnutrition (Deaths)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many old and retired people died of malnutrition in Scotland in the year 1971; and if he will state the circumstances in each case.

Mr. Monro: Deaths of old and retired persons from malnutrition in Scotland in 1971 numbered 14. The detailed circumstances in each case are not easily available.

Mr. Hunter: That is a substantial fall from the numbers who died in 1970 due to malnutrition. However, the incidence of malnutrition is caused by a variety of reasons, one of which is an insufficient income. Does the Minister agree that a substantial increase in the basic pension would give old people confidence in their last remaining years to enjoy them with vigour and determination? Will he ask his right hon. and hon. Friends to come up now to Committee Room 13 where a deputation of Scottish old-age pensioners is meeting and discussing problems? Please ask the Secretary of State to come—Room 13 at 3.30.

Mr. Monro: I note what the hon. Member said and I hope that he and other hon. Members will keep these sad cases in perspective. The 14 deaths from malnutrition must be compared with the 44,379 from normal causes among old people. I note what he says about an increased income and that is exactly what the Government are seeking to achieve for the old people.

General Teaching Council (Disciplinary Committee)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been investigated by the General Teaching Council's Disciplinary Committee; and how many teachers have, as a result, been removed from the register.

Mr. Monro: I am informed by the council that the figures are seven and two, respectively.

Mr. Brewis: Do not the figures show that the committee is by no means the Star Chamber it was forecast to be? Will the Minister, in consultation with the teachers' organisations, consider whether its remit can be extended, for example to cover cases of professional incompetence?

Mr. Monro: I take my hon. Friend's first point. It is of interest that the figures I gave are exactly comparable to those of the four previous years when the Secretary of State was responsible for these matters. My hon. Friend will know that the Act covering this matter does not allow the GTC to go beyond infamous professional conduct or criminal conviction.

Education (Administration)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with regard to educational administration under the proposed reformed system of local government.

Mr. Monro: The broad outline of the proposals for local government reform, which included the proposal that education should be a regional responsibility, were discussed with the local authority associations; the implications for the education service have been discussed at a conference of the Association of Directors of Education and my right lion. Friend's Department; and my officials have met representatives of the Churches, at their request, to hear their views on the desirability of continued involvement of the Churches in administration of education.

Mr. Millan: Is the Minister aware that in spite of the publication of the Bill there is still uncertainty about exactly how education will be administered? The

teachers' organisations, among others, complain of lack of consultation. It is a particularly acute problem in the Strathclyde region, which does not make sense as an educational authority.

Mr. Monro: I know the hon. Member's views on the West Region and I am sure he will develop them at a later stage. Of course we have had informal contacts with all people interested in education, and other than on the issue of teacher representation on regional councils I believe there to be very little between us on the Bill, which is generally welcomed. In any event there has been no request from the teachers' associations to consult us.

Egg Imports

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will restrict the importation of eggs into Scotland from Northern Ireland for the duration of the Northern Ireland egg subsidy scheme to the quantities which were despatched from Northern Ireland in the year before commencement of the scheme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is not a satisfactory reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when egg producers in Scotland have suffered the consequences of over-production and are going out of production as a result, it is intolerable that eggs subsidised by the British taxpayer should be brought in free of any apparent control from Northern Ireland? Will he bear in mind that the export of eggs from Scotland to Northern Ireland is already subject to control? Why should not the control work both ways?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate my hon. Friend's strength of feeling. He and I have been in correspondence about the subject and I have also met a deputation from the Poultry Commission of the Scottish National Farmers' Union. My hon. Friend must realise that this is a limited subsidy for a limited period and he must look at it against the background of the effort the Government are making through financial measures to stabilise and assist employment in Northern Ireland in the extremely difficult situation which exists there.

Erskine Bridge

Mr. Ian Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the promised review of the operation and charges of Erskine Bridge will take place.

Mr. Younger: Preliminary traffic studies are in progress, but I cannot yet say when the review will be completed.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members will be very pleased to see that the bridge has been given the British Steel Corporation Award? As the judge said, it is one of the finest examples of courageous British engineering and I should add that it was built without a fatality. Now that the proposals for reorganisation of local government have been published and the north and south banks will be brought under one body, will the Secretary of State ensure, when the review takes place, that tolls are abolished and that proper integration for industry and manpower on both sides of the river can take place?

Mr. Younger: I associate myself with what the hon. Member says about the award. It is a very satisfactory outcome from those who were involved in the construction of the bridge. Tolls are one of the things which must be studied in considering the effect of the traffic trends.

Sir J. Gilmour: Will my hon. Friend look with favour at any proposals for amending legislation to allow those who travel regularly across the bridge to have season tickets, a facility they are not permitted under present legislation?

Mr. Younger: That is another point which can be taken into account.

Mr. Buchan: The suggestion by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) can be implemented now. There is a season ticket experiment on other bridges and people who live in Erskine have to cross the bridge as much as four times a day, which means an extra £3 a week. Will the Minister speed up the review in order to get rid of the tolls?

Mr. Younger: We want to conduct the review against the full figures of traffic flow and so forth and it cannot be conducted in any other fashion. The hon. Member's other suggestion can certainly be taken into account.

Millport

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to pay an official visit to the burgh of Millport.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have no plans at present to do so.

Dr. Mabon: If the right hon. Gentleman visits Millport the people there will tell him that the objections they had on amenity grounds when Hunterston was first developed have proved not to have been justified. They recognise that developments at Hunterston are vital for towns whose economies are based upon holidaymakers because those towns are dependent upon the well-being of industrial workers in Scotland. If and when the right hon. Gentleman comes to Millport the people there will be as anxious as those in any other part of Scotland to see not only general port facilities and steel developments at Hunterston but also, what is obvious, further oil refinery development in that part of the world.

Mr. Campbell: In that case they will have welcomed the planning decision which I announced nearly two years ago after the inquiry which kept nearly all the options open for industrial development at Hunterston. I have two individual applications before me now and therefore I cannot go into details.

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Mr. Prentice: Mr. Prentice (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the new form in which the unemployment statistics are to be published tomorrow.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): As I told the House on Monday, the Government have accepted the proposals put forward in a report by an inter-departmental working party' on unemployment statistics which have been published as a White Paper.
The report recommends a simplification of the presentation of these statistics. It recommends a single aggregate, described as "the unemployed", which would include school leavers and adult students seeking vacation work. Figures


for the temporarily stopped will continue to be shown in the Press notice but separately from those relating to the unemployed.
The report points out that the statistics of unemployment record simply the number of people registered with the Department of Employment as unemployed. These figures are mainly used for two separate purposes. First, as economic indicators. Second, as indicators of social distress. The report concludes that the statistics already provide extremely useful information for both these purposes, provided that they are examined in depth and interpreted with care.
The monthly Press notice issued by my Department will appear in a new form tomorrow. All the main groups—including the temporarily stopped—which have appeared before will be shown in the new Press notice and the seasonally adjusted figures, which are the best indicators of trends, will be on exactly the same basis as before.
But the monthly Press notice will also contain some additional information designed to help those who seek to comment upon or interpret the statistics.
I hope that we shall be able to publish in addition from time to time more comprehensive analyses derived from the figures already available in the Department of Employment Gazette.

Mr. Prentice: The Secretary of State might have explained why, on a matter of this sensitivity, he accepted the report on the same day as it was published, without any chance of public discussion, and why he announced it to the House by way of a Written Answer to an inspired Question. Does not he owe the House an explanation on those matters? Could not he at least make some amends by adopting the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that a Select Committee should examine the best way in which the figures should be presented?
On the main substantive point, is not it clear from the recent census figures that real unemployment has been consistently underestimated for many years by the unemployment statistics? Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his own White Paper which he has just quoted

said that there might well have been in 1971 about 400,000 people who were unemployed but whose unemployment was not recorded in the figures, and that many estimates put the figure much higher?
In this situation, how can the Government possibly justify making a change in one direction by excluding the temporarily stopped people, who, after all, are out of work and registered on the day when they are counted, but taking no account of the much larger numbers of people who are unemployed but not registered? Does not that mean that tomorrow's and subsequent figures will under-estimate the real level of unemployment much more seriously than the previous figures?
What possible reason can there be for that, except the Government's desire to fudge the situation and to give the impression that unemployment is less serious than in fact it is?

Mr. Macmillan: I had hoped that, as a result of choosing a moment when unemployment was consistently dropping, the sort of charge that the right hon. Gentleman made, wholly unjustifiably, could be avoided in a serious attempt to deal with the problem of relating statistics collected for a relatively narrow purpose and making them more effective for a wider purpose.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the main economic indicator is the figure of wholly unemployed, in the old term, exluding school leavers and adult students. The temporarily stopped have also always been excluded from the seasonally adjusted figure of wholly unemployed. The figures of temporarily stopped indicate something rather different, and they are still published in the Press notice and perhaps given a little more prominence.
One of the reasons why the interdepartmental study concluded that the temporarily stopped should be treated in that way is the erratic nature of the figures, particularly for those who study them most carefully on a regional basis. For example, in the West Midlands from August, 1971, to January, 1972 there was, I regret to say, a steady increase in the number of wholly unemployed, from about 77,000 to about 87,000. The temporarily stopped fluctuated from 16,000 to 52,000 to 45,000 to 46,000, to


34,000, and to 25,000. That was due to a particular situation in that area. Their inclusion in the figures of the wholly unemployed would have given a totally misleading impression of the situation in the West Midlands—at one month more favourable, at another less favourable. It is that sort of situation that the separating of the temporarily stopped, but not their exclusion from Press notice, is designed to avoid.
I turn to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the census figures. There is a number of reasons for the discrepancy between those figures and those on the register. First, the question asked by the census was whether a person was seeking work or waiting to go to a job. Secondly, the census figures included those who were ill. In 1971 the census figures for those seeking work totalled 1,366,000, and the registered unemployed were 730,000. The difference between the two figures is 636,000, of whom 230,000 were sick. That leaves 400,000, of whom there were 100,000 males and 300,000 females.
The 1966 census showed a difference of about 430,000 between those who said that they were seeking work or waiting to go to a job and the registered unemployed. About 200,000 of those were sick, which left a total of 230,000, of whom there was roughly the same proportion of men and women. I regret that I do not yet have from the census figures the equivalent figure for 1971, but of the total in 1966 half the discrepancy is accounted for by those who were waiting to take up work which they already had. In addition, the great majority of the discrepancy in the 1971 figures arises from the fact that half are waiting to take up work.
The problem is that the answer, "Yes" to the question, "Are you seeking work?" depends in many cases on certain conditions. Married women, housewives and others who are available for certain types of work are available only on certain conditions and are not registered at the employment service offices.
Regardless of the effect that it may appear to have on the figures used as an indicator of social distress, I take this opportunity of suggesting that people who are seeking work should register with

the employment exchanges, because that is the only way in which my Department can help them to get work.

Mr. John Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many informed commentators—not necessarily supporters of the Conservative Party or the Government—who have long felt that the presentation of the unemployment statistics is misleading, will welcome these changes and examine them carefully? Will my right hon. Friend, through the committee, look again at the figure of the unemployable. It is regrettable that the unemployable are dismissed in one short paragraph of the White Paper, and it is thought that they must be quantifiable.

Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. The committee worked on the figures derived from the system as it was of people registered at employment exchanges. From those figures it is not possible to identify either those who are sometimes alleged to be not genuinely seeking work or those who come under any definition of "unemployable". Even the term "unemployable" must depend to some extent on the demand for labour and is a rather subjective term. If it were possible I should like to identify those who are sufficiently socially or otherwise disadvantaged to be classified perhaps with the disabled, but at the moment we have not the capacity to do so.
We are trying to use sampling techniques to reinforce the existing figures, and the White Paper contains suggestions for carrying forward this work. It is a considerable task. This is the first step, and this problem, which has been found to be difficult by successive Governments, cannot be solved all at once. There are wide variations in the impact and level of unemployment not only between regions but between different parts of the same region. Therefore, the sampling must be carried out extremely carefully if it is not to cause confusion and is to be a fair and accurate method of reflecting the facts.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that the method he has outlined of compiling unemployment statistics merely tinkers with the problem, and that spreading the figures over a larger number of pages, sweeping them under the carpet and


avoiding questions in the House is not the way to go about it?
The Minister mentioned the regions. What is he doing about migration from the areas of high unemployment, which is a means of cloaking the real impact? On the Minister's own assessment of social distress and the unemployment figures being used as an economic indicator, is he not again falling short of what the House requires? What we need from the Department is an indication of how soon unemployment will be tackled, and this is not the way to do it.

Mr. Macmillan: Unfortunately, perhaps, from the point of view of presentation, it is not the responsibility of my Department to create work. Its responsibility is to run the employment services and the statistics that go with them. All the information that the hon. Gentleman is seeking is available in the Department of Employment Gazette, where it is analysed in great detail. There are two difficulties. If one attempted to give this information in a Press notice, no one would print it because it would be too long and detailed. Secondly, the publication of the unemployment figures would be greatly delayed. I should like additional information to be given in the monthly Press notice, but it would mean a longer delay between the period to which the figures relate and the publication of the Press notice.
That is why I have decided that it is right to continue to publish the same basic figures presented slightly differently. I did not consult the House because the difference is so slight. We shall continue to use other methods and hope to publish periodic Press notices and analyses. To do that every month would delay matters, but if the information is given periodically it can be used by informed commentators to demonstrate and analyse trends more readily. The combination of producing the maximum amount of relevant information with the minimum delay and more detailed information slightly less speedily will provide the information which the hon. Gentleman is seeking.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the changing relationship be-

tween the figure of unfilled vacancies and the statistics of the unemployed makes it clear that as an economic indicator the unemployment figures have become practically valueless in recent years? The latest reforms are extremely welcome on these benches as the first step in the process of producing a much more meaningful "Bradshaw" on unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the true economic indicator we need is the number of unemployed who are genuinely seeking work?

Mr. Macmillan: I accept, as my hon. Friend says, that we are trying to produce a more meaningful "Bradshaw". The difficulty is to keep the timetable both updated and fully detailed—a problem which I am sure he appreciates.
On the question of those who are genuinely seeking work, the problem of using a statistical system to make subjective judgments is that it can be done only by a series of sample analyses. All I can do is to ensure that my officers try to place people in work, try to relate vacancies to people seeking employment and try to ensure that those who are registered as unemployed are willing to take jobs when they are offered to them. That is as far as we can go.
I accept that the relationship between vacancies and the unemployed as an economic indicator has changed enormously. Analysis is difficult. There are now far more vacancies in relation to the numbers unemployed than there have ever been. Therefore, the number of people on the register is not being diminished as rapidly as usual by the increase in the number of vacancies. I suggest that both employers and employees should use the employment exchanges. It is precisely to improve that use that my Department has instituted an employment services agency and is trying to modernise, update and improve all the premises and the services we give both to employers and workers.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter, but I must preserve the time of the House for its other business.

MANPOWER SERVICES COMMISSION

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on my proposals for establishing a Manpower Services Commission.
In my statement on 8th August I said that I proposed to have further talks with the TUC and the CBI before coming to any final conclusion on the ultimate form of organisation of the employment and training services, with the purpose of coordinating these services and of involving employers and employees in both activities.
I must retain general responsibility for manpower policy, but I am proposing to set up a Manpower Services Commission representative of employers, trade unions and other interests which would have direct responsibility to me for the employment and training services. The TUC and CBI agree with this proposal.
The Commission would take over responsibility for the Employment Service Agency we have set up within my Department and the Training Services Agency we are setting up now. Its main functions would be: planning, developing and operating the public employment services; carrying out the broad range of functions set out for the proposed National Training Agency in "Training for the Future"; and advising me on manpower questions.
The Commission and the agencies would be a source of manpower intelligence and statistics and would join in Governmental discussion of manpower issues as appropriate. They would have close relations with the education Departments and the education service, and would consult with other interested Departments and bodies as necessary.
The Commission would operate within such broad policy objectives as were set out in the legislation and in any general guidance given to them by the Government from time to time. With the assistance of the agencies, the Commission would prepare a five-year rolling programme, and a detailed annual programme of work and budget, for submission to me. When these had been approved the Commission and the

agencies would be responsible for operating within them.
They would be financed by grant-in-aid from my Department. I would remain responsible to Parliament for the general level of resources made available but the Commission would be responsible to me for their efficient use. I would retain power to direct the Commission to take action which the Government considered urgently necessary in the manpower field.
If the Commission is to assume effective responsibility—as I fully intend—it must be kept small. I think it should consist of no more than about 10 members, mostly part time. In appointing members I should wish to secure representation of local authority and education interests, though the majority would be drawn from the TUC and CBI. The TUC and CBI have welcomed the proposal for a Commission and have agreed to co-operate in it.
The implementation of these proposals as announced in the Gracious Speech. will require legislation.
This statement gives merely an outline of the new arrangements: many important questions will need further discussion—the Commission's relationships with the industrial training boards, relations with the education service, its part in providing services to disabled people, the position of the staff of the agencies, and many others. My colleagues and I will be conducting urgent consultations with all those concerned.

Mr. Prentice: The Secretary of State has made an important statement. Is he aware that it is likely to receive a general welcome throughout the House and outside? Will he note that this is an idea which has been put forward for many years by the Labour Party and the TUC? We are glad that he has caught up with our thinking. He has made it clear that this is an outline statement with a great deal of the detail still to be worked out and we shall clearly want to reserve our judgment on the details until we see them later. Can he give us an idea of the timetable? Can he say how long he expects the further consultations to last and when he will be in a position to present legislation?
Will he ensure that manpower planning will be a central part of the whole operation and that the new authority


will have sufficient finance and personnel to be a powerful influence? Can he say anything about the future of the youth employment service? How far does he expect that service to come under the new Commission and how far under the local education authorities? Does this still remain to be worked out? Will he bear in mind the strong submissions he has received that the industrial training boards should be left with an important job to do and should be free from day-to-day interference from the new authority?
In the consideration that is to be given to these matters in the coming weeks will he take the opportunity to reconsider his ill-judged proposals to reduce the size and scope of the industrial training levies because although such reductions are less damaging than those put forward by his predecessor, they are still likely to damage the prospects of industrial training if carried forward in the way he proposed in his statement in August?

Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome of these proposals. I hope that he is right and that they will be welcomed inside and outside of the House. This is an idea which has been discussed for some years by the Labour Party and others. It was very much part of the discussions within our party when we were in opposition. This is the first time that anyone has sought to act on those discussions. The object of bringing together the employment services and the training services under a Manpower Commission is to do two things. First it is to improve the use of one of our most important resources, namely manpower. Second, it is to improve the opportunities available to individuals, the fitting of square pegs into square holes, if I may put it that way. Since public money is being used, it is clearly necessary for the Secretary of State of the day to retain overall responsibility for long and medium-term manpower planning, using the Commission and the agencies to collect the necessary figures.
The important point here is that this is a new relationship. It is not a wholly hived-off body over which the Government have no control. It is a body for which the Department is responsible to

Parliament. The industrial training boards will continue to play an important part in the set-up. Their relationship with the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Agency is one of the matters we shall have to discuss in some detail and which will develop with a changing situation.
I do not believe that the new set-up will do any harm to training, first because the levy is limited to 1 per cent. Quite a large number of boards at the moment find that a levy of 1 per cent. or less is a suitable stimulus to good training. The levy remains available for those firms or industries not carrying out training adequate for their needs, present and future.
I am considering changes in the organisation of the youth employment service on the lines proposed in "People in Jobs" and in the light of views expressed by interested parties. I hope to be in a position to announce a decision before too long.
As to the timing, clearly I should like to get the Commission set up as soon as possible—either late 1973 or during 1974. The whole process started with a consultative document and this situation has arisen by a genuine process of consultation based on that document. Therefore, I should not wish, so to speak, to commit myself on the timing as I am anxious that the process of consultation, which involves a large number of different people and interests, should be carried out in a way which is satisfactory not only to my Department, but to the interests concerned.

Mr. Redmond: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the many representations that I know have been made to him, particularly from the engineering industry, regarding the levy grant in the new training board set-up? What criteria will be adopted regarding small firms and what protection will he arrange to have given to training groups amongst small firms which form a tremendously important part of training in most industries, particularly in engineering?

Mr. Macmillan: I thank my hon. Friend for emphasising the importance of group training schemes and their continuance, particularly in industries where a significant proportion of the output


arises from relatively small firms. How the board will apply the levy is a matter to be discussed separately with each industry. Circumstances are not the same in different industries. Therefore, it would not be right to have a simple across-the-board standard of what forms adequate training. This clearly varies from industry to industry. Indeed, one of the main purposes of the whole process of reform is to get a greater degree of flexibility.

Mr. Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a distinct relationship between the statement he made apropos the establishment of this Commission and the subject of unemployment which we were discussing a few minutes ago? It seems absurd that we should be regarding a manpower problem in one statement as though we have not enough workpeople in this country, whereas a few minutes ago we were talking about the problem of recording the numbers of unemployed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman to put a supplementary on the Private Notice Question. He must not try to put in now the supplementary which he would have put earlier.

Mr. Molloy: My point, Mr. Speaker, is that while this Commission could be very useful, it will not be of much use if it is merely to come back and report to the House of Commons that it has no power to deal with unemployment. Therefore, if the Commission is to be a success, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to influence his colleagues to change the course of Government economic policy, to cut down unemployment, and to make all this a reality?

Mr. Macmillan: Industrial development and related matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Under successive Governments one of the obstacles to fuller employment has been bottlenecks caused by shorage of specialist skilled labour. I believe that my Department, with the Manpower Services Commission and the organisation I have proposed, will be able to deal with the problem more effectively.

Mr. Raison: Will my right hon. Friend go further on the relationship of the new body to Parliament? Will it still be pos-

sible to ask detailed questions about the everyday running of the Commission?

Mr. Macmillan: This matter will have to be discussed. A body which has sufficient freedom of action to be really effective in this sphere should not necessarily be subject to day-to-day parliamentary Questions in detail, although in all its aspects it would be subject to the Select Committee on Expenditure and its subcommittees. On the division of responsibility and accountability to Parliament, I shall be responsible to Parliament for the proportion of resources devoted to it. I shall also be responsible to Parliament for the bodies which effectively use those resources. I hope that the changeover to the Expenditure Committee will provide a suitable parliamentary forum for discussing the implementation of some of the detailed programmes as it has in other respects, such as the nationalised industries.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to include in the forthcoming legislation a proposal to take powers to regulate the activities of fee-charging employment agencies? He will be aware that both sides of the House indicated their intention to carry out such regulations under the appropriate ILO Convention some years ago. Would this be a suitable opportunity to introduce such legislation?

Mr. Macmillan: I am still consulting the various interest involved. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, some form of regulatory legislation is desired by the industry. I am trying, right across this sphere, to continue a proper process of full, not merely formal, consultation.

Mr. Marten: Is it envisaged that the Commission should collect the sort of information and make the sort of assessments which could usefully be fed into the Department of Education and Science so that expenditure on higher education could be better related to the needs of the nation? If so, will there be representatives of higher education on the Commission?

Mr. Macmillan: It is intended that the Commission should have educational representation, both direct and through local government representatives. The only limitation must be in numbers. If


a Commission is to be an effective executive body, not merely advisory, the numbers must be kept down to a reasonable figure.

Mr. Atkinson: A little time ago the Minister said that, no matter how accurate the figures, he did not think the unemployment statistics were reliable economic indicators, and I noticed that the Prime Minister flipped his eyelid in agreement. Does that mean that the Government are saying that the level of unemployment can no longer influence wages?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think I said that the unemployment figures are no longer reliable economic indicators.

Mr. Atkinson: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Macmillan: I said that the changed form of the figures did not alter the fact that the most reliable economic indicator was the seasonally adjusted figure of wholly unemployed, excluding school leavers, adult students seeking vacation work and temporarily stopped. Confusion sometimes arises over the value of a series as an economic indicator compared with the value of single items in that series. Even figures which are subject to error can be and are used as an effective guide if taken in a series as a whole, but they can be misleading if one attempts to deduce more than can be deduced from one figure in that series.
I said that the relationship between the wholly unemployed seasonally adjusted and available vacancies is now different. There are various reasons for this which require to be analysed. It means that it is now becoming harder to assess on a national basis, largely because of regional distortions. It is extremely important that those who study these matters carefully should rely not only on the present but should look more carefully at the more detailed figures in the Department of Employment Gazette.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Harold Walker: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from the reporting of an exchange with the Prime Minister that occurred in the House at Question Time yesterday. You will recall that a reply by the Prime Minister to a supplementary question by me evoked, I admit, a rather intemperate response on my part and that of some of my hon. Friends. It did so, because the words were of such a nature as to be indelibly imprinted on my memory.
In order to confirm that the words used by the Prime Minister were in fact those which I thought he had uttered, I checked with the report on the tape within half an hour of the exchange, and read that they were as follows:
The Prime Minister has said 'that from the point of view of running the economy and what measures need to be taken, it is the temporarily stopped, most of whom are on strike of one kind or another …'
and it was at that point that the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted.
This morning I checked The Times, which the House usually accepts as a reliably accurate guide to the proceedings of the House, and found that it confirmed that the Prime Minister had used those words. According to The Times he said:
Everybody knows when one is dealing with unemployment figures that the temporarily stopped are mostly those on strike.
That accords with reports in several other newspapers.
On reading HANSARD, however, I see a different form of words. According to the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Prime Minister said:
The analysis of unemployment is set out in the White Paper, and everyone knows that when one is dealing with the unemployment figures from the point of view of running the economy and what measures are needed to be taken for it, the temporarily stopped, who are mostly the result of those who are on strike for one reason or another.
It was at that point that the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted.
We all understand and accept that there is a long-standing practice whereby hon. Members may scrutinise and tidy up their speeches before their words are committed to print and that Ministers


have private secretaries who usually do the scrutinising for them and check their speeches before they are finalised in the official record, and I make no complaint about that.
But what the Prime Minister said, and what is within my recollection and, I am sure, that of the House, and is confirmed by newspaper and other reports, is different in substance and in considerable material degree from the words in HANSARD. The difference is between the allegation, on the one hand, that most of the temporarily stopped are strikers, and. on the other, the more reasonable and moderate assertion that most of the temporarily stopped are laid off as a consequence of strikes.
I submit that the record ought not to be tampered with in this way. If the Prime Minister intended to utter the words recorded in HANSARD but, because of a slip of the tongue, failed to do so, the proper course is for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to the House, and I am sure that the House, in its usual generous way, will readily accept it.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry if yesterday, with the noise going on, I said that the temporarily stopped were themselves those on strike, because it is well known that they are in that situation as a result of others being on strike. That is what I intended to say, and I think that that is borne out by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, when responding to my remarks about this, used the same phrase, "apart from strikes", and added
and the effects of bad weather."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1083–4.]
That is what I intended to say to the House. That is the case, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

CARLISLE AND DISTRICT STATE MANAGEMENT SCHEME

Mr. Ron Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In July of last year, on the Government's initiative and without any mandate from the electorate at the General Election of 1970, a measure was passed through the House to denationalise the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme.
Since July I have used every conceivable means at my disposal, and my democratic rights, to raise matters concerning the sale of the scheme, so far without any success, yet certain newspapers are able to get information on the matter.
Yesterday, in pursuance of my democratic rights, and bearing in mind that the greater part of the scheme lies within my constituency, I tabled 124 Questions on the sale of the scheme.—[An HON. MEMBER: "A waste of money."] I hear someone say that that is a waste of money, but I am interested in my constituents, and I ask the House to bear in mind that I do not hog the Order Paper with Questions. On this occasion I felt that I had the democratic right, and the interests of public accountability, to put to the Minister certain Questions on which I required information. The Table Office said that it did not think my Questions would be accepted, and I received a white card asking me to have a word with the Clerk at the Table. This I duly did, and informed him that I was not satisfied.
He drafted a Question which, in the opinion of the Table Office, covered the Questions to which I wanted answers. His suggested Question dealt with the sale of the whole of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme, whereas my 124 Questions dealt with certain aspects of the scheme only, and I was therefore unable to accept his suggestion.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the matter has been referred to you. There has been nothing like it in the lifetime of this Parliament, so far as I know. This was the denationalisation of a brewery.

Mr. Peart: A very good brewery.

Mr. Lewis: As my right hon. Friend says, it was a very good brewery. Because of my democratic rights as an elected Member, I wish to make my protest at being gagged on matters of vital importance to my constituents. I suggest that you should allow the 124 Questions to appear on the Order Paper. It will be much easier for the Home Office to answer them than to reply to the Question suggested by the Table Office. I wish to register most strongly my protest against the denial of my democratic rights as an elected Member of this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was kind enough to inform me that he would raise this as a point of order. This is a matter for me. I have to safeguard the Order Paper. I have given certain rulings in other cases. I cannot give one ruling for one hon. Member, and another ruling for another. I have considered the matter carefully, and I have made my decision. It is my decision, and if the hon. Member wants to question it there are ways in which he can do that, but there the matter must remain today.

Mr. Peart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand your ruling, but my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has a point. The Carlisle and District State Management Scheme affects not only Carlisle. My constituency, too, is affected, and I should like to table a few Questions about the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can try to see whether the Questions are allowed, but this is not the time to pursue the matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 8TH DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Geoffrey Stewart-Smith.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis.
Mr. Michael Meacher.

BILL PRESENTED

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Michael Heseltine, Mr. Patrick Jenkin and Mr. Cranley Onslow, presented a Bill to make further provision for financial support in connection with the production in the United Kingdom of the supersonic aircraft known as the Concorde: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

Orders of the Day — PENSIONERS AND FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT PAYMENTS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair.]

Clause 1

LUMP SUM PAYMENTS TO PENSIONERS

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: With this we are to take the following Amendments:
No. 4, in page 1, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 2.
No. 5, in page 2, line 15, at beginning insert 'A war pension or'.
No. 6, in page 2, line 24, at end insert:
'(h) injury benefit under section 11 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965;
(i) disablement pension under section 12(5) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, in those cases where the recipient is unemployed'.
No. 7, in page 3, line 26, at end add:
'(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (I) and (3) above, entitlement to sums payable under this section shall only apply, in the cases in which benefits or pensions arise from unemployment or inability to follow employment, in the case of an employed man or woman, where such benefits or pensions have been in payment for a period not shorter than 168 days'.

Mr. O'Malley: This afternoon we are continuing our debate on the Bill and the subject surrounding it against the background of mounting concern at the plight of pensioners at Christmas, 1972. In many ways this is an historic date for us. There is a massive lobby of trade unionists and pensioners from all over the country who are concerned to see decent minimum living standards for pensioners and others on low incomes. The first group of amendments is closely connected with the concern which is being shown by the large lobby which is now taking place outside the Chamber.
The purpose of the amendments is to extend the entitlement of the £10 bonus to widows, the long-term sick and disabled and the unemployed who are dependent either on flat-rate benefits or on supplementary benefit, or both. As the Bill stands, only those over retirement age are eligible. Therefore, many people on State pensions are deprived of the £10 bonus because of the restrictive wording of the Bill.
The fact that large groups of pensioners are excluded from the terms of the Bill reveals, first, that the Bill is no part of a major overall or long-term strategy for pensioners, or a measure to deal with poverty. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill has been introduced as a stop-gap measure at a time of crisis of the Government's own creation. All the evidence points to the fact that were it not for the pressure which was brought to bear by the TUC representatives at the tripartite talks at Downing Street a few weeks ago, we should not now be discussing the Bill.
Secondly, last year the Government took no notice of our demands for a winter bonus. Not only did the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State refuse to consider or debate the subject in late November, 1971, but after the debate they promptly forgot every suggestion which had been made. Almost nothing was done to deal with the problem of inadequate heating for retirement pensioners. There is no sign that the proposal that a winter emergency payment should be made was ever given any consideration by the Department of Health and Social Security until the project was forced upon it at the last moment because of the TUC's intervention at Downing Street.
We understand that the proposals in the Bill are part of crisis measures and not part of a long-term strategy. It is plainly partly for that reason that this hastily put together Bill excludes substantial sections of the pensioner population. It is accepted by all hon. Members that we are in a period of rapid inflation. It is accepted by the Government that there has been need for emergency action to help retirement pensioners. But what the Bill does is intolerable. Are we to accept—I say this particularly to hon. Members opposite—that we can in con-

science leave out people who are receiving the widow's pension, widowed mother's allowance or just supplementary benefit? Are we to say that women who receive a flat-rate benefit no bigger than the benefit received by retirement pensioners should be excluded from the Bill? Do not these widows, and perhaps their children, require help in these desperate times, with prices rising so rapidly?
The long-term trends of poverty in this country indicate that widows, and particularly elderly widows—for this purpose I include widows in their late fifties, who are excluded from the Bill—are amongst the worst-off sections of people in the community. For example, two out of every seven retirement pensioners have to rely on means-tested supplementary benefits. Almost half of elderly widows have to rely on supplementary benefits. Therefore, this section of the community desperately needs help. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will feel able to include the widows in the provisions for the £10 bonus.
Similarly, can we say that we are prepared to exclude the long-term sick in the community, people not on earnings-related benefits but on the same flat-rate benefit as the retirement pensioners? Can we exclude people who are unemployed for an increasingly much longer time?
The latest average quarterly figures published in the Department of Employment Gazette indicate that 303,292 men and women had been unemployed for over 26 weeks. Nearly 170,000 of them had been unemployed for over 12 months. Therefore, a large section of those 300,000 have completely run out of entitlement to earnings-related benefit of any kind.
Can we leave out, at such a time of inflationary pressure, the war pensioners or the industrially disabled? Can we leave out those who are in receipt of attendance allowance, the most terribly disabled members of the community? Can we leave out those long-term sufferers with no national insurance entitlement who are struggling on supplementary benefit?
One of the amendments has the effect of restricting entitlement to the bonus to the long-term sick and unemployed. We are not proposing that payment should be made to those many people who are still entitled to earnings-related benefit.


We are saying that there are substantial numbers of people who are excluded from the Bill who should be included.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is a substantial number of people over pensionable age who are excluded? At one moment I thought that that was what he was saying. If it is, I hope that he will specify who he thinks are excluded, as I think that I shall be able to reassure him in due course that that is not the case.

Mr. O'Malley: That is not what I said, and it is not the purpose of the amendments. The first amendment leaves out the condition that the recipients shall be above retirement age—60 for women and 65 for men. Many people under that age in the categories described should be included.
When the Under-Secretary of State was discussing the matter the other night he said:
But I ask the House to recognise that this operation is being carried out in record time. It was necessary, if it were to be paid before Christmas, to ask who needed this payment most and what categories could be readily recognised, either by the Post Office or by the Department, so that it could be done on time. This is to some extent, of course, rough and ready. That is the price we have to pay for this prompt response and to get this payment into operation before Christmas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1028.]
I have two matters to put to the hon. Gentleman. First, when the £10 bonus was conceived and announced, it was said that it could not be paid before Christmas and that it would be paid early in the New Year. It was only at a later date, after the decision had been taken as to who was entitled to this benefit, that it was discovered that it could be paid before Christmas.
4.30 p.m.
Second, as I said the other night, of course we realise the administrative difficulties, just as we recognise and should be grateful for the work which the Post Office is doing in order to make these payments available before Christmas. But if the hon. Gentleman were to come to the House and say, "We cannot make the payments to these other categories before Christmas, but we will get this

second time upon Monday next and to bonus into their hands early in the New Year, when the weather is still cold and many people still need that money badly," we shall be satisfied. It is a matter of major injustice that such categories, among the poorest and most stricken in the community, should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill simply because the Government drafted it in a hurry, without proper consideration.
We hope that, by now, the Government have given proper consideration and that both sides of the House can unite to see that there is provision for the widows, the sick, the disabled and the more unfortunate people who, as the Bill now stands, are excluded, so that they, too, can get this bonus, if not before Christmas, certainly not long after.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I would make a special plea to the Minister to make this payment to the widows and the disabled. The Bill acknowledges a special case for a certain group of people who require this payment on account of age, but I believe that the widows and the disabled should also be taken into account.
Widows are an unrecognised group requiring special attention, particularly at this time, because no group is less recognised. Although a great deal of lip-service is paid to widows as a group, their problems remain unresolved and unrecognised in public. A special all-party group has just been formed, with the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) and myself as the chief officers, and a number of hon. Members from both sides have been addressing meetings of widows. Nothing can be more poignant than meeting these people and seeing their distress because of their widowhood. Nothing can be more moving than to see them with their children at Christmas in the presence of families with fathers; the widows are unable to give their children gifts.
If the Minister acknowledged and accepted this group and included it in the Bill, he would make a big step forward. I hope he will listen to and accept this plea. This is the first step in a very big campaign which is shortly to be waged, both within and without the House, on behalf of widows.
I make the plea for the disabled to be included because the extra expenses of disablement are enormous. Not only are their earnings generally far lower than those of most people, but many of them are unemployed. The unemployment rate of the disabled is a great national scandal. But, for one reason or another, disability can generally be equated with poverty. That is one of the very few generalisations that one can safely make.
The expenses for these disabled people on low incomes are enormous. They cannot hop on to a bus. They require taxis or someone to push them along, or special transport. Disabled people wear out their clothes much more quickly than other people. Because of their immobility they require special heating. For all these reasons, I hope that the Minister will include the severely disabled in the Bill.
This would be a once-for-all payment. It would not damage the Treasury at all. It would benefit the widow and the disabled, and I hope that the amendments will be accepted.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has said. I want to put before the House an illustration of the effect of the Bill as it now stands. I have here a letter sent to me by one of the disabled people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has referred. This gentleman lives in Weymouth. In his letter, which he has headed "State pensioners' bounty", he says:
I am almost 64 years of age and my wife is over 65 years of age, but we do not qualify for the O.A.P., as it used to be called, but owing to a spinal complaint I am unable to follow any employment, so I qualify for 'Invalidity Benefit'. We do not receive any supplementary benefit.
Does the above bounty also go to people in our circumstances? As you of course know and realise, people who receive 'Invalidity Benefit' receive approximately the same remuneration as State Pensioners; their awards are on a par. Have this section of the public in my category and at our age level been overlooked?
I felt obliged to write back to this gentleman to say that he had been overlooked by this Bill—no doubt the Minister will confirm that that is a correct interpretation—because he is not over

pensionable age and his wife, who is, is clearly not insured in her own right.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Dean indicated assent.

Mrs. Castle: This is surely a dramatic illustration of the falsity of the line that we are drawing. If we are dealing with poverty this winter, families like this should be included. I could not for the life of me give that correspondent any reason why the Bill excluded him and his wife. I hope that our amendments will enable me to tell him that the Government have changed their minds.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: The Government are paying this £10 because they have now recognised that the pension they brought in in October is already out of date, so they are giving a special payment to men over 65 and women over 60 who are drawing retirement pensions. We welcome that. We appreciate that, because of the need for speed, the £10 will be paid to many people who do not need it, who have substantial pensions and investments. But we accept that to do it quickly we must pay it to them all.
What we are saying is that there are other groups, named in the amendments, who need this money perhaps more than the retirement pensioners. I estimate that for the other people mentioned, including the 120,000 who have been unemployed for over a year, this would cost the Government another £14 million on top of the £81 million they are spending. Even if they cannot do this before Christmas, I urge them to do it as soon as they can in the New Year.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I also support the amendment to extend this benefit to other obviously deserving groups. It is very difficult to think of any arguments why they should not be included. No one who listened to the groping twistings of the Under-Secretary on Second Reading can have any doubt about that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned speed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has demolished that point. Having lost that argument, the Minister turned to another point—his only other one:
One could easily get into a position in which one included a person who was sick for


just a short period, say one week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1028.]
Of course no one suggested anything as unnecessary and extreme as that. It is perfectly easy to define a group of those who are long-term sick, disabled, unemployed or widowed over a period and receiving those particular benefits.
I would take the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) a little further. If all these groups were included, on my estimation the total extra cost would be about £20 million or £30 million. Are the Government saying that they cannot afford that sort of sum, that they are prepared to spend £80 million to try to overcome the effects of inflation but not £110 million? In all, justice is there any argument which would give the benefit to those who are over 65 but would exclude those in exactly similar need below that age?
Finally, I want to deal with the Government's main argument, about which we have heard so much in the last two years. The Government's sole claim to equity is that they concentrate resources on those in greatest need. The whole logic of that argument goes in precisely the opposite direction to the Government's case. According to the latest supplementary benefit returns, those in greatest need in our society, excluding the low-wage earners who do not get family income supplement and excluding some old people who do not get supplementary benefit, are as follows—and I give the official figures: 1,900,000 retirement pensioners on supplementary benefit; 457,000 unemployed; 303,000 sick and disabled; and 226,000 women with dependent children, including 65,000 widows. In other words, for every two old people on supplementary benefit there is one person on supplementary benefit who is not over pensionable age. Of those in greatest need in our society, one-third are under 65 and they are expressly excluded for no justifiable reason.
The big increase in poverty under the present Government, an increase of more than a quarter of a million persons since the General Election, is almost wholly in the age group of the under-65s. What this means is that if the Government refuse to accept the amendment, they are

preferring to give these £10 or £20 grants to the 5 million old people who are above the supplementary benefit line rather than to the 1 million persons under 65 who are below the supplementary benefit line.
That is surely a complete distortion of every social argument that the Government have ever advanced. Their motive for doing this is all too transparent. It is not speed; that argument has been demolished. It is not simplicity of identification because, given more time, that could be easily overcome administratively. It is cheap. It is the cheapness of this manoeuvre which will rankle with those who are excluded.
If the Government are not to lose the whole political objective of the Bill, they would do very well to reconsider whether it is not in their interest to accept the amendment.

Mr. Brynmor John: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) cited a case where the lady was over pensionable age but the husband was under. I have received representations on the reverse position, where the husband is over pensionable age but the dependent wife is under that age. Such a couple will get only £10, and not the £20 promised.
Even with so speedy a hand-out as this, we have to avoid being ridiculous in our line drawing. There is no argument, where a wife is dependent upon her husband, for that couple having £10 when the lady is aged 59 years and 11 months and £20 when she is 60 years old and one day. It is absolutely ridiculous and we do no credit to ourselves as a legislature in making it is. The living expenses are comparable. The effect of the rise in the cost of living on that couple is exactly comparable.
The Government are saying that anyone with a dependent wife under 60 shall only have the £10. The Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, have said that this pay-out was an earnest of their good intentions. Unless they make speedy and drastic alterations in line with the amendments, it will be an earnest of their to all too many people.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I rise to support the amendment. A very strong plea was made to the Minister on Second Reading to bring in a Government


amendment so that the £10 bonus payment would be made to people such as those referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I assure the Minister that there are thousands and thousands of people in this country who are severely disabled. Disability is interrelated with severe poverty in most cases.
On Second Reading I made a special plea for a Government amendment which would cover the long-term unemployed and long-term sick. I understand that if the Government accepted the amendment it would mean that the severely disabled, the unemployed and the long-term sick would be covered for the bonus. Is the Minister prepared to tell the Committee tonight that the Government have not seen fit to spread their form of justice?

4.45 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I have not consulted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary before rising to speak, and I do not know what he will be able to say. He must, however, have found this short debate painful and embarrassing, because every hon. Member has a particular group that he would like to help.
All of us are deeply concerned about the conditions of the disabled. We are aware of the problems of widows and one-parent families. We all know of cases of old people living on their own who are distressingly poor. But what this short debate has proved is that our insight into the nature of entitlement is negligible. We have not done our work on what I call the social contract. We do not know what we owe to what groups, or why. We have an ill-defined feeling that we are not doing enough for the poor. That is true. I hope that the Treasury and the representatives of Departments who have heard or will read the debate will feel this keenness on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that we should do more to relieve distress.
But first, we must clarify our minds about where the money is to come from and to whom we want it to go. It is not enough to have a spasm of emotion about one group or another when it comes to a Christmas bonus. We have to solve the problem once and for all.

Mr. O'Malley: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question—which he

has put previously—is that in this context the money is coming from the Treasury, which is being liberal with its hand-outs to the better-off, and it is to go to people who are on national insurance benefits or on supplementary benefit. But the long-term recipients are not covered by the Bill. It is a very simple proposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will support us in this matter.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: To some extent, the Treasury has been liberal in what it has allowed the Department of Health and Social Security to do in the way of helping handicapped people and people in poverty over the past two years.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention has brought me to my final comment. We simply cannot regard the social services as a bran tub into which everyone can put his hand and pull out something good. We have to understand where the money comes from. It comes from the British public. All of us must work together to solve the problem of where the money is to come from as well as where it is to go to.

Mr. Dean: The debate has very understandably drawn attention to some sections of the community who will not benefit from the Bill. The case has been made out that these sections should be included. It is easy for any of us to make out such a case in isolation. I shall put to the Committee some of the reasons for the Bill as it is and some of the problems which would arise were we to try to do as the amendment proposes.
First, this part of the Bill is primarily meant to assist those over pension age who are in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits. Broadly speaking, that is the overwhelming majority of those over pension age. At the tripartite talks it was agreed on the part of all three parties that we wished to help the pensioners. There was no argument about that.
The Government said at that time that the pensioners should share in the increased prosperity which would result from the curbing of inflation which we hoped would follow from an agreement at those talks. It is that, rather than pressure from the Trades Union Congress or from any other organisation, which has resulted in the Bill. This is an earnest


of intention on the part of the Government when we entered into that commitment to see that pensioners should share in the improved prosperity which would result directly from the curbing of inflation.
This is against the background of two increases in pensions and in other social security benefits which have taken place in the last 14 months. It is against the background of a firm commitment to an annual review of pensions and of other benefits so that they will be increased before the onset of each winter by at least sufficient to deal with the rise in prices which has taken place over the previous 12 months. If possible, we hope to do better. During the last two years under these upratings it has been possible not only to improve the pension enough to deal with rising prices, but also to give a modest improvement in the real value. The improvement in the real value of the pension increase which came into operation only last month was 3·7 per cent.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Can we take the hon. Gentleman's pledge that pensioners will share in the country's general prosperity to mean that in the very near future there will be an announcement by the Government that in future State retirement pensions will be tied to the average national weekly wage to ensure that pensioners enjoy increased prosperity; because, without that, they will not?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman knows that the commitment which we have entered into is to ensure that the purchasing power of the pension is at least restored in annual reviews—this is an advance on any previous practice—and that we hope to do better than that. I have explained that there has been a modest improvement in the real value of the pension as a result of the increase which came into operation in October, namely, a real increase of 3·7 per cent.

Mr. Cyril Smith: If the Minister is not prepared to give an assurance that the annual review of pensions will be tied to wage rates, is he prepared to give an assurance, in the light of what he is saying, that they will be tied to the cost of living?

Mr. Dean: I have given that firm assurance. The Government are com-

mitted to ensure each year in the annual reviews that the pension is increased by at least enough to compensate for the rise in prices. We hope to do more than that.
Those with the strongest vested interest, in the best sense of that phrase, in the tripartite talks and in the Counter Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill are the pensioners, because it is they who can benefit most if we succeed in stabilising prices and stopping the run-away inflation which hits the pensioners first and hardest.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We all appreciate that the Government are now to conduct the annual review. Will the Under-Secretary give a definite assurance that the annual review will not be used as a minimum waiting time irrespective? We all know that come next April prices, particularly food prices, will be astronomically high once we are in the Common Market. Old-age pensioners usually spend their money only on food and accommodation, the price of which commodities will rise sky-high. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if next April there is hardship the Government will not say that the pensioners must wait until the annual review in the autumn; because many of us want something done before then?

Mr. Dean: As the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, the annual review, as opposed to a review every two or three years, which was the previous practice, is a major advance. Pensioners now have an assurance, which they have never had before, that they will not have to wait more than 12 months before improvements are brought about. When the next annual review is assessed, any increases which take place in food prices will be taken into account. Equally, the benefits of the Housing Finance Act to those on low incomes—the pensioners—will be another factor which will be operating.

Mr. Robert Boseawen: Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that at next autumn's review this payment of £10 will be discounted?

Mr. Dean: I assure my hon. Friend that these elements are disregarded for the purposes of the annual review. What the Government will assess when the


next annual review is made are the factors which are normally taken into account, namely, the increase in the cost of living, the increase in earnings, and other such factors.
Equally, attention will be paid to the success or otherwise of the economic policy on which we are embarked to get greater prosperity and to stabilise the cost of living. The more successful we are in these things the easier it will be to ensure that pensioners get a share of improved prosperity.
The background to this operation is that we are bringing the lump sum in to about 8 million people within a month of the announcement. I do not think that any major exercise of this kind has been done anything like so quickly before. Eight million people will get this benefit. The cost is about £80 million.
If we are to do this successfully in the week of 4th December, as we are determined to do with the great help and co-operation of the Post Office, we must have groups of people who can be readily identified either by the Post Office or by our local offices. Once we depart from the pension age of 65 for men and 60 for women, it is difficult to find defensible stopping points. Operational difficulties come into operation which would easily threaten the fulfilment of the wish of the whole Committee that this lump sum should be paid before Christmas.
Therefore, although I admit freely that age is not a perfect criterion, none the less it is the best and the quickest, and it is the one which most accurately reflects the tripartite talks and the earnest of intention which the Government announced following the tripartite talks.

Sir Myer Galpern: Will pensioners who do not qualify for the pension until, say, the week corn-fencing 11th December be excluded from the £10 grant?

Mr. Dean: If they do not qualify until the week after, they will be excluded.

Mr. Meacher: Mr. Meacher rose—

Mr. Dean: I must ask the Committee to allow me to get on for a little while. I have given way on many occasions. In Committee there is the possibility of further speeches being made. It would

probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to continue to answer the questions I have been asked. If at the end of that I have not dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I will gladly endeavour to do so.
A number of hon. Members have asked me about those who are excluded, and the reasons for it, and I will now come to that point. First, with regard to those over pension age, the overwhelming majority of those over pension age—that is, 65 for men and 60 for women—are in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits and therefore will get the £10 lump sum. Broadly speaking, the only ones excluded will be pensioners abroad who normally are not in receipt of any increases which take place, and women over 60 who are married to men who have not retired. This is a point which the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) mentioned, but I think he will accept that in the case of women in this category, whose husbands have not retired, the men are employed, in most cases in full-time work, and are therefore in receipt of earnings. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that these are not amongst the categories to whom one would give the highest priority.

Mr. John: That is a fair answer, but it does not meet the point that I made. The point that I was making, which no doubt the hon. Gentleman misunderstood because of my brevity, was the case of the man over 65 and the woman aged 59 who was dependent upon that man's pension. I did not make a point about a man who had not retired.

Mr. Dean: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, the man over 65 not in receipt of a pension has almost certainly postponed his retirement because he is still in work and is, therefore, receiving earnings.

Mr. John: I am sorry to keep badgering the hon. Gentleman, but he has fundamentally misunderstood me. The point is that a retired man over 65 with a dependent wife of 60 gets £20. If a man is over 65 with a dependent wife aged 59 years and 11 months, they get only £10. All I was saying was that an extension of this proposal would be justifiable in such a case.

Mr. Dean: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I merely say that one has to draw a line somewhere, and one of the places where one draws a line is at the point whether people are still earning or whether they are in retirement.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned the case of the widows. Widows, of course, over the age of 60 and in receipt of a qualifying benefit will receive the £10 lump sum. But there are many widows in receipt of a widow's pension and who are earning, and many are comparatively young—both young and earning.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) understandably mentioned the long-term sick, as did the hon. Members for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South. All of us have sympathy with these groups of people. It is for this very reason that the new invalidity pensions and allowances have been introduced, to try to assist—and, indeed, they have assisted—these groups of people. Equally, for this reason the attendance allowance has been introduced—another new benefit to help these sections of the community. Those over pension age and in receipt of these new benefits will equally be in receipt of the lump sum.
Reference has also been made to those on industrial injury benefit and the longterm disablement benefit. Here again, happily, quite a large proportion of these people are earning in addition to receiving their industrial injury benefit. I think that is a good reason for not putting them in this category. Then there are those under retirement age in receipt of supplementary allowances. It would be a major operation to try to separate them out. Some of them are on this benefit for a very short time—for a week now and again—and to ask the Department to look through something like a million people who arc in receipt of this benefit, to try to separate out, as it were, the sheep from the goats, would be a major operation and would endanger the tight timetable for getting this benefit into operation.
The same goes for those on unemployment benefit or those who have exhausted their right to unemployment benefit. There is no readily identifiable way in which one group could be separated out

from another. We should almost certainly land ourselves in a great many inequities and unfairnesses which I am sure the House would not want to see.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that he accepted the weight of many of these arguments. He said that he accepted that this could not be done before Christmas but he asked why it should not be done for these groups after Christmas.

Mr. Richard Crossman: There is one group which the hon. Gentleman has omitted, I am sure by inadvertence. That is the man who has retired and is not earning and whose wife is under 60. The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with this case, which involves an absolutely clear group. It is no good telling me about somebody who is earning. I am concerned with the man who is not earning. Such a man by definition has retired. The only point is that his wife has not reached the age of 60. We cannot see why the need of that group is any less because the wife is a month under 60. Why should they get £10 when the others get £20? The hon. Gentleman has not really answered this case at all.

Mr. Dean: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. As I say, in these cases one inevitably has to draw a line somewhere. In the case that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted we have followed the logic of the Bill, namely that those over the age of retirement and who are getting qualifying benefit will be in receipt of the £10 lump sum. Those who are not will not. It is as simple as that.
The hon. Member for Rotherham asked "Why not have staggered dates? Why not bring some of these groups in later on if they cannot be brought in before Christmas?" To have a staggered date for payment for other categories, which are acknowledged to be deserving, would introduce inconsistencies complications and inequities. On the one hand, there would be people who were beneficiaries at the qualifying date who had ceased to be so my the date of payment, and, on the other hand, there would be beneficiaries at the time of payment who had not qualified at the relevant time. We wish to avoid discrepancies and anomalies of this kind by making a simple system which will be easily understood


and which will lead in most cases to automatic payment with no need for any claim by the persons concerned.
Although one clearly has sympathy with the groups of people who have been mentioned, I hope the Committee will recognise that this is a major operation which is being introduced in record time. If we are not to undermine the effectiveness of that, and if we are to ensure that these payments are made in the week of 4th December, it is necessary to take readily identifiable groups. I submit that the eight million people over retirement age are the groups most acceptable, and I hope the Committee will feel them appropriate for this Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Under-Secretary expressed sympathy for the groups of people covered by the amendments. We on this side of the Committee want action, not sympathy.
The debate is taking place against a background of mass lobbying of this House. The lobbyists insist that there must be an immediate and substantial increase in the standard of living of retirement pensioners and of others whose incomes derive from social benefits. Many of us have had put to us this afternoon the severe deprivations of long-term sick and disabled people and of widows—not least of young widows—as well as of very large numbers of old-age pensioners.
Both disablement and widowhood, in far to many cases today, are but other words for poverty. It is much to the credit of the Post Office staffs that they are doing so much to facilitate the payment of the bonus to the elderly poor. We are quite certain that similar arrangements could be made to benefit the excluded widows, the long-term sick and the disabled.
The trade union movement as a whole is to be congratulated on its devotion to the cause of the elderly poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are those who labour under the illusion that there is somehow a conflict between working people and retired working people. Anyone who has listened to the lobbyists today knows that to be a ridiculous illusion.
The poorer one is the more of one's income is spent on food and warmth.

For some of the very poorest people there often has to be a choice between food and warmth. It is a sombre choice for many of the most deprived people in our country to have to make.
As the whole Committee knows, food prices have risen dramatically under the present Government. On 14th November I had a reply from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which revealed the following figures. In the two years June, 1970, to June, 1972, food prices rose by 27·6 per cent.; in the two years July, 1970, to July, 1972, food prices rose by 27·1 per cent; in the two years August, 1970, to August, 1972, food prices rose by 32·8 per cent.; in the two years September, 1970, to September, 1972—the latest month for which figures are available—the rise was 31·8 per cent. Those are bleak statistics for the disabled poor and for widows of whatever age.
Even if the cost of food and warmth is ignored, the living costs of disabled people are higher than those of other people. This was eloquently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). The Government themselves issued a circular to local authorities on 17th August, 1970, asking them to take into account the extra costs which fall upon disabled people. We are now asking the Government to practise their own precepts.
It has often been put to me today by people outside the House that we spend £2,854 million a year now on armaments. In these amendments we are asking for a very small amount in contrast to our expenditure on arms. There would he no objection from the great mass of the people if the Government were now to concede the case we are making. There has been angry debate recently about the Government's freeze. It has been argued to me by widows, by disabled people and by the elderly poor that there is a freeze for them every winter. They ought not to be asked to choose between food and warmth. The Government can do something now, if they will, to relieve acute suffering in our community.
All we have had from the Under-Secretary of State has been a jumble of statistics, with a brief expression of sympathy. We want action. I hope that there will be hon. Members on both


sides of the Committee ready now to press him to reconsider his reply. We are not here involved in just a verbal exercise; we are deeply serious in our proposition; and, if the Minister is not prepared to reconsider his answer, we

shall divide the Committee on these amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 249, Noes 264.

Division No.17.]
AYES
[5.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John


Allen, Scholefield
Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Foot, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashley, Jack
Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marquand, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsden, F.


Barnes, Michael
Garrett, W. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Meacher, Michael


Baxter, William
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Been, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Millan, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Molloy, William


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F' bury )
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Henley, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Ronald King


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Horam, John
Ogden, Eric


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oram, Bert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Pardoe, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richard, Ivor


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald



Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelly, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell



Delargy, Hugh

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David



Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lawson, George
Rowlands, Ted


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Sandelson, Neville


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McBride, Neil
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel




Spriggs, Leslie
Tinn, James
Whitlock, William


Stallard, A. W.
Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Steel, David
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Swain, Thomas
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Weitzman, David



Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fidler, Michael
Lane, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Merchant, Spencer


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Awdry, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Luce, R. N.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Batsford, Brian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
MacArthur, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
McCrindle, R. A.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McMaster, Stanley


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor



Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bitten, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gray, Hamish
Madel, David


Blaker, Peter
Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maude, Angus


Bowden, Andrew
Gurden, Harold



Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bray, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Bullus, Sir Eric
Havers, Sir Michael
Molyneaux, James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernie


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hayhoe, Barney
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Carlisle, Mark

Monro, Hector


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus


Cary, Sir Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David


Channon, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar


Chapman, Sydney
Haley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)



Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Clegg, Walter
Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Coombs, Derek
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey



Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Osborn, John


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Crouch, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
James, David



d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack

Parkinson, Cecil


Dean, Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian


Deedes, Rt Hn. W. F.
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dixon, piers
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pounder, Rafton


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter
Raison, Timothy


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Redmond, Robert


Fell, Anthony
Knox, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.







Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Waddington, David


Ridsdale, Julian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stokes, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Sutcliffe, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Weatherill, Bernard


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Scott, Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Sinclair, Sir George
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Soref, Harold
Trew, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Speed, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher



Spence, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sproat, Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Vickers, Dame Joan

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'payment' and insert 'payments'.

The Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 3, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'a sum' and insert 'sums', and 8, in page 3, line 26, at end add:
'(7) The sums defined above shall be payable at such intervals and under such conditions as are defined by the Secretary of State in regulations'.

Mr. O'Malley: The amendment has a simple purpose. The Bill authorises the Secretary of State to make a payment of £10 to retirement pensioners for persons over retirement age and, in addition, a further payment of £10 to the wives of such claimants. The amendments taken together will give the Secretary of State an extended authorisation to make not one but a number of such payments at intervals.
We tabled amendments because we recognised that the principle of the £10 Christmas bonus, although it has arisen as a panic reaction, may do some lasting good. The Government should consider the general principle of bonuses being made at or around Christmas-time or at intervals throughout the year. For that reason the amendments are drafted so as to leave a large degree of discretion to the Secretary of State. I believe that now that the principle of a Christmas bonus for pensioners has been created future Governments might consider it useful and desirable to do the same.
The second reason for the amendments is that the £10 payment is helpful but in

overall terms it is grossly inadequate. I spoke to an old lady only the other day who had already decided how she would spend her £10. She said that she wanted a dress for Christmas, an electric blanket and what was left, if anything is left in these days of Conservative inflation, would go on extra food for Christmas. She illustrates my point. The £10 payment leaves the longer-term needs completely uncovered, particularly as we know that there is still a chronic gap in the social services in the provision of proper heating allowances for retirement pensioners and others.
In addition, an examination of the movement of the food price index and the retail price index during the last 12 months indicates just how much strain pensioners have been undergoing during that period. It is clear that they will be living in conditions in which that strain will be continued as a result of the continuous increases in the cost of food. It was revealed yesterday at Question Time during exchanges between the Minister of Agriculture and my hon. Friends that the freeze does not apply in many areas of foodstuffs. For example, last week the price of beef went up 2p a lb. Therefore, in view of the certainty of continuing rises in food prices—whether for reasons beyond the Government's control or not—the implications of value added tax, of entry into the Common Market and of the de facto devaluation of the £, with its major implications on the cost of imported food, it is clear that £10 will not be enough.
5.30 p.m.
During the Committee consideration of the National Insurance Act last Session the Opposition made proposals, which were


the current proposals of the National Council of Labour, that there should be a pension of £8 a week for a single person and an equivalent pension for a married person. Inflation has moved on rapidly since then, and the amendments were designed to meet the increases which we warned were coming and which are still continuing. The Government are refusing to meet the legitimate claims made through the TUC and in the lobby this afternoon for an immediate increase in pensions to meet the tragic circumstances in which many of our elderly citizens are living, but there is another way in which help can be given. Under the amendments the £10 bonus could be paid at intervals throughout the whole of next year to deal with rising food prices.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the TUC. Can he tell us of a single occasion when it placed pressure on its members to moderate their wage demands so that money might go to the old-age pensioners?

Mr. O'Malley: Why does not the hon. Gentleman perform the simple job of reading the newspapers and seeing, for example, the contribution that Jack Jones has made to the debate within the past two years and what has been said by the TUC and trade unions about being prepared to take their share of the responsibility? How can the hon. Gentleman expect wage-earners, particularly the low-paid, to talk about wage restraint and freezes when they have been inflicted with the Tory Rent Act, and day after day, as a result of deliberate Government policy, prices have been put up? What is surprising is how sensitive Conservative Members are about the fact that their Government have allowed inflation to get completely out of control.
Our amendments offer the Government a get-out. We are giving them the opportunity to make the necessary payments through a bonus throughout the whole of next year. Our proposals are not well thought out, because the system is not well thought out. They are a stop-gap, but it is better that pensioners should receive money in that way than receive nothing, which is apparently the Government's intention.
For those reasons, we hope that a Government whose strategy has fallen apart, who have panicked in recent weeks as a result of the failure of the broad policy proposals that they had when they came into office two years ago, will now go a step further and ensure that the pensioners not only receive a bonus on 4th December but receive further money from the Government in the way proposed, if in no other way, so that they may live and keep their heads above water in the inflationary days which are typical of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I rise only because of the unsatisfactory answer I received to the question I put to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley).
We are seeing today a lobby of many people who rightly wish to bring to our notice the problems with which they are faced. But many of those who are concerned with that lobby, and who are, I believe, providing the stewards for it, have in their own hands the opportunity and the means to ensure that pensioners have a secure future. I take it that the fact that the Transport and General Workers Union is concerned with the lobby means that it has agreed to a voluntary wages freeze on its own behalf for two years in order that the money involved may go to the old-age pensioners.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It would go to profits.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I very much trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will say in reply to the debate that if there were a major demonstration of that kind by the TUC or any major union the Government would respond by making sure that the money went to the old-age pensioners. But, unfortunately, when I asked the hon. Member for Rotherham specifically what single action there had been by the TUC in the past two years to contribute to a bettering of the old-age pensioners' standard of living, I received no answer.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Mr. Thomas Cox rose—

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The reason I received no answer from the hon. Member speaking for the Opposition is that there has been no specific action by the TUC to help the old-age pensioners.


There have been many attacks on the Government, but no action at all.
The only way to ensure that the pension is worth more is by moderating prices. I think that both sides of the Committee agree about that. But we cannot moderate prices in an atmosphere in which we increasingly find people prepared to demand that their wage increases shall be put ahead of everyone else's, that there shall be no question of a national arrangement whereby all sections come together to prepare the basis of a sensible future for the country.
I believe very strongly that the Amendment is an attempt to obscure the reason why the old-age pension has been eroded over the past 15 years, which is that sections of the community are happy to tell other people to do something about the matter but are not happy to take the responsibility for themselves.

Mr. O'Malley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me, bearing in mind increases in meat prices of nearly 50 per cent. in the past few years, wherein lies the trade unions' responsibility on that subject? He says that there is no specific example of trade union action in the past two years to help the old-age pensioners; but the payment of the £10 bonus this Christmas arises from the weight, the muscle and the pressure of the TUC on the Government at Downing Street a few weeks ago.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's last statement is totally untrue. If the TUC had come to an agreement with the Government and the employers, the old-age pensioners could have looked forward to not only a £10 bonus but a secure future.

Mr. Marks: On a point of order, Sir Robert. We are discussing Amendments concerning the repeated payments of the £10 bonus. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in making a Second Reading speech when he was not even present at the Second Reading debate?

The Chairman: I have not noticed anything out of order yet. As soon as the hon. Gentleman is out of order, I shall pull him up.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: If the Front Bench leader of the hon. Member for

Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) wishes to ask a question, it seems reasonable to answer it. If the question of the hon. Member for Rotherham is out of order, perhaps he will be brought to order by the Chair. But the question was asked, and I am answering it.
To demand that there should be "payments" is to suggest that for all time there will be a problem over the old-age pensioner's keeping up with the cost of living and receiving his or her share in the nation's increased wealth. If that problem is to go on for all time, I do not want an impermanent solution. I want to consider why the problem has arisen. It need not go on for all time; it could be finished very rapidly by Government action. That means a review of pensions every year, which is not something the hon. Gentleman managed to achieve when in power. Secondly, it could be ended by an increase in pension by an extremely large amount, large compared with what went before. That has been done. Thirdly, if the Transport and General Workers' Union and other unions wish the old-age pensioner to do better in our society, they must be prepared to accept that the extra wealth that they in part create goes to the old-age pensioners.
We know that a trade union has been threatening to take industrial action in the middle of the freeze to support a demand for increased pay, not for increased productivity, not for a new job, but for people who are not going to do a new job and who might be put out of work if the people who are doing the job get an increase in pay. Has that union thought about old-age pensioners who will have to pay increased train fares? Has it thought about the increased food prices which will arise from increased freight prices?

Mr. Heffer: Stupid.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may say "Stupid", but if he told the militant dockers in Liverpool that old-age pensioners are suffering because of their activities he would do more for the old-age pensioners than he is doing by shouting "stupid" from a seated position.
The suggestion is that we should add "s" to "payment". Would it not be much better to ensure that the old-age


pension is sufficient to meet the needs of the pensioners? We cannot do that merely by providing a bonus every now and then, although in extreme circumstances I believe it to be right to do so. We can help the old-age pensioners only by being honourable and honest, which means getting the people over whom we have influence to understand that if they moderated their wage demands the old-age pensioners could have help not only at Christmas this year but in the years to come.

Mr. Heffer: I had no intention of participating in the debate until I heard what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) had to say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that when the ordinary man comes to the end of his working life in industry he does not end up with a fat bank balance. Like my father, he probably ends up with a shilling in the Post Office Savings Bank. Dockers, railwaymen and miners do not earn such enormous wages that they can put away vast sums for their old age. The argument that if the workers forgo their wage increases the amount involved will automatically go to old-age pensioners is utter rubbish. What will happen is that the people who own and control industry will get bigger profits.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a contribution to the amendment, he should suggest to his Front Bench that in the next Budget the Government should reverse their policy of giving large amounts of money away to surtax payers, as they did in their last Budget. The amount they gave to the surtax payers would have given old-age pensioners about £3 a week.
The hon. Gentleman should not talk about equal sacrifices. He and his colleagues who represent a particular section of society have made no sacrifice. The only sacrifices that are ever made are made by the people who are represented by the Opposition. The trade unions are deeply concerned about old-age pensioners because they know that when their members retire they will be old-age pensioners living on a pittance, just as their fellow workers who have retired do now.
It is true that the Labour Government should have done more in their period of office. Every year I have pressed both the Labour Government and the

Conservative Government for extra payments to old-age pensioners at Christmas to enable them to meet their heating expenses and so on. I am saying nothing different now from what I have said before. The fact that it can be said that people have skeletons in their cupboards does not help the old-age pensioners.
If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West is serious about helping old-age pensioners, he should support the amendment, which is a perfectly reasonable one, to provide for the kind of bonus that is being paid now to be paid at intervals. The Government have been forced by the TUC into paying the £10. They are making a great song and dance about it only because they want to divert attention from the real need of old-age pensioners, which is for a decent pension much higher than the one they get now.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The arguments against the amendment seem to me to be the arguments that were used against Amendment No. 1. There are three parties represented in the Committee, two of which are able to speak without looking too much at skeletons in the cupboard. I accept that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has not too many skeletons in his cupboard. At least, he was sensible enough to say the right things at the right time, so that he has a clean past on this. The Liberal Party can speak with a clean past because it does not have a past. The Labour Party is another matter. The Conservative Party can speak with a clean conscience about looking after the aged and all manner of people in difficult positions. Since the Government have been in power they have done more for these people than did the Labour Government. I have never listened to such rank hypocrisy as I have heard from the hon. Members for Manchester. Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley).

Mr. Dean: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) in moving the amendment neglected to mention some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) who reminded the Committee of what has been achieved for


pensioners during the last two-and-a-half years.
I do not say this in any spirit of complacency, but we are entitled to make the sort of comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and Lewisham, West when we con-skier what has been done during this period. In the first place, there has been the annual review of pensions which I mentioned in the earlier debate, and which is a major advance for pensioners; for the first time ever, the pensioners have an assurance that before the onset of every winter their pension will be looked at and improved at least enough to compensate for the rise in prices, and we hope to do more.
Last year we did more. The real improvement over prices in 1971 was 3 per cent. for the ordinary pensioner and more than 7 per cent. for the pensioner over 80. The real improvement this year, 1972, is 3·7 per cent. In addition new benefits have been introduced for hitherto neglected sections of our community. There have been pensions for the over-80s, the age addition for pensioners over 80, the age-related pensions for widows, the age allowance for war widows between 65 and 70, improved benefits for the chronic sick and disabled, family income supplement, the attendance allowance, and the improvement in the earnings rule for those who go on working after the retirement age.
Substantial tax relief is given to the elderly, with the result that the limit on the age exemption relief, giving those aged 65 and over a higher starting point for tax, has been increased since 1970 from £475 to £634 for a single person and from £740 to £929 for a married couple. This means that an elderly married couple can now have a total income, including pension, of up to £18 a week, and an elderly single person of up to £12 a week, without having to pay any tax at all.

Mr. Spriggs: To hear the hon. Gentleman speaking about the Government's policy the Committee might think that the pensioners are living in luxury. If that is his view, can he tell us why we have this mass demonstration today with pensioners from all over the country lobbying Members?

Mr. Dean: I am not saying that. We all want to do more for pensioners. No one is complacent. When we are attacked from the Front Bench opposite we are entitled to point out what has been achieved as an earnest of our intention to ensure that this progress continues.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the total value of all benefits given to pensioners is of the order of £120 million, which is precisely 4 per cent. of all the Government's handouts, a quarter of which have gone to the rich?

Mr. Dean: What I will confirm is that those people who form much-neglected sections of the community received no help from the party opposite during the six years that it was in Government.
In addition to the improvements in cash benefits there have been substantial improvements in services. In geriatric hospitals, for example, expenditure on services was £5 million in 1968–9, and is expected to be £18 million in 1972–3. There has also been a record increase in the number of local authority health visitors, home nurses and home helps. I quote these as examples of the progress which has been made and which we are determined will continue.
The hon. Member for Rotherham and a number of his hon. Friends have mentioned the lobby going on outside. They said that the TUC was proposing an immediate increase in the pension to £10 for a single person and £16 for a married couple. What the hon. Member and his hon. Friends did not do was to tell the Committee what the cost would be, who would pay for it, and what the effect would be on the contributions. I will fill that gap.
The cost, over and above the substantial improvement in pensions in October, would be £2,000 million a year, and the effect on contributions would be as follows: for a man earning £48 a week or more the increase in contributions would be £1·35 a week; for a man earning £40 an extra £1 would be required: for a man earning £30, an extra 75p, and for a man earning £20, just under 40p extra, on the assumption that the cost would be borne as it is at present. It is only right, when hon. Gentleman opposite enter into political auctioneering, that


they should go on to say how much each individual worker would have to pay to meet these costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was so right when he said that many sections of our community and above all the trade unions have the opportunity and the means ot help the pensioners by moderating their own claims, thus making a contribution to a more stable cost of living. In the light of the Government's record and their determination to continue to improve the lot of pensioners we are entitled to say that this Amendment is no more than political auctioneering. It is no more than the party opposite, with a comparatively worse record in these matters, saying, "Whatever you do, we will do better." I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Mr. Marks: I have addressed seven meetings of pensioners and given them precisely the same figures on contributions as the Under-Secretary has just given. I believe that trade unionists would be glad of a change of priorities so that more could go to pensioners, with higher contributions from the workers and taxpayers. The tax reliefs given by the Government would pay for the entire

increase demanded by the trade unions. The figure of £2,000 million given by the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. In answer to a Question on Monday, the Under-Secretary gave me the figure of £1,200 million.

Excepting unemployment benefits and sticking to pensions, we say that this £10 bonus should not be what the Secretary of State described it as on Monday, namely, a "one-off" payment. Two years ago I would have agreed that an annual review of pensions would largely solve the problem. I tabled amendments to that effect to the two Bills brought forward on this subject. An annual review is no longer good enough. Rather than say that there should be six-monthly reviews we say that the Government should have the opportunity, in this legislation, to make speedy allowances not only to old-age pensioners but to other, easily identifiable groups, at intervals throughout the year. The Under-Secretary would be helping his own case if he supported this amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 264.

Division No. 18.]
AYES
[5.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ford, Ben


Albu, Austen
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cronin, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Allen, Scholefield
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Galpern, Sir Myer


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Garrett, W. E.


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tarn
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Atkinson, Norman
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Golding, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Baxter, William
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bennett, James(Glasgow,Bridgeton)
Deakins, Erie
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bidwell, Sydney
Delargy, Hugh
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamling, William


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Booth, Albert
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Harper, Joseph


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)



Brown, Robert C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield).


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Hattersley, Roy


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Buchanan, Richard(G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Horam, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ellis, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire,W.)
English, Michael
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Fred
Huckfield, Leslie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Ewing, Harry
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Hunter, Adam


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Janner, Greville


Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Conlan, Bernard
Foley, Maurice
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)






John, Brynmor
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Milne, Edward
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Small, William


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Molloy, William
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Stallard, A. W.


Judd, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Steel, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Murray, Ronald King
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Kelly, Richard
Oakes, Gordon
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Kerr, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Neil
O'Malley, Brian
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lambie, David
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lamborn, Harry
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Lamond, James
Orme, Stanley
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Lawson, George
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Leonard, Dick
Padley, Walter
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pardoe, John
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tuck, Raphael


Lipton, Marcus
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Urwin, T. W.


Loughlin, Charles
Pendry, Tom
Varley, Eric G.


Lyon, Alexander, W. (York)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wainwright, Edwin


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Prescott, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McBride, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)
Wallace, George


McCartney, Hugh
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Weitzman, David


McGuire, Michael
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Mackenzie, Gregor
Richard, Ivor
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mackie, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitlock, William


McNamara, J. Kevin
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wiley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Marquand, David
Roper, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Marsden, F.
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilton, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Sandelson, Neville
Woof, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)



Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mendelson, John
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Channon, Paul
Fortescue, Tim


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chapman, Sydney
Foster, Sir John


Astor, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fowler, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Churchill, W. S.
Fox, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clegg, Walter
Fry, Peter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cockeram, Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Gardner, Edward


Batsford, Brian
Coombs, Derek
Gibson-Watt, David


Bell, Ronald
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Benyon, W.
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Biffen, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)



Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gray, Hamish


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj-Gen. Jack
Green, Alan


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dean, Paul
Grieve, Percy


Body, Richard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Dixon, Piers
Grylls, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Bowden, Andrew
Drayson, G. B.
Gurden, Harold


Braine, Sir Bernard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bray, Ronald
Dykes, Hugh
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brewis, John
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Emery, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Antony
Farr, John
Hastings, Stephen


Bullus, Sir Erie
Fell, Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hayhoe, Barney


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fidler, Michael
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Carlisle, Mark
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Heseltine, Michael







Higgins, Terence L.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Simeons, Charles


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holland, Philip
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Soref, Harold


Holt, Miss Mary
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Money, Ernie
Spence, John


Hornby, Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sproat, Iain


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Howell, David (Guildford)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morrison, Charles
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hunt, John
Mudd, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


James, David
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Normanton, Tom
Sutcliffe, John


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nott, John
Tapsell, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jopling, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Temple, John M.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborn, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kilfedder, James
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Tilney, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Percival, Ian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kinsey, J. R.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Trew, Peter


Kitson, Timothy
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tugendhat, Christopher


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pink, R. Bonner
Turton, Rt. Hon. Sir Robin


Knox, David
Pounder, Ration
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lambton, Lord
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Lamont, Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lane, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Waddington, David


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walters, Dennis


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Raison, Timothy
Ward, Dame Irene


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Warren, Kenneth


Loveridge, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Luce, R. N.
Redmond, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


McCrindle, R. A.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilkinson, John


McLaren, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Madel, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Worsley, Marcus


Maginnis, John E.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rost, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Marten, Nell
Russell, Sir Ronald



Mather, Carol
St. John-Stevas, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maude, Angus
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendments.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

IMMIGRATION RULES

6.10 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control on Entry (H.C., 1971–72, No. 509), a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd October, 1972, in the last Session of Parliament, be disapproved.
There is a second Motion on the Order Paper:
That the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control after Entry (H.C., 1971–72, No. 510), a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd October, 1972, in the last Session of Parliament, be disapproved.
I trust that there will be no objection to the two Motions being debated together.
This is not a satisfactory way of dealing with rules of such import. We are able to have this debate only because of a long argument during the passage of the Immigration Bill through the House when it was conceded that these rules would be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. Had that not been conceded we would have been able to look only at the rules as laid.
As I understand it, if the House decides not to accept the rules the Home Secretary will take them back, re-draft them and submit the re-drafted rules to the House within 40 days. The Opposition's case is that in places the rules are so offensive to natural justice, to decent human treatment, and to the long tradition of links between this country and the Commonwealth, that the Home Secretary should withdraw them and re-draft at least some of them—and because I like to be as constructive as I can I shall try to indicate to the Home Secretary which rules the Opposition feel should be re-drafted.
The Opposition's view—and I hope that it will commend itself to many hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches—is that if the House decides that the rules should be amended, before they are laid again the Home Secretary should seek the advice and help of the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations, and that its request to look at these rules should be acceded to because of the excellent work that it has done in an extremely difficult situation.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is not the procedure that if the House decides not to approve the rules they remain in force unchanged, but under the Act of the Minister has a duty to lay proposals for change within 40 days?

Mrs. Williams: That is my understanding of the situation, but I am stressing that within the 40-day period the Home Secretary should consult the Select Committee as well as others whom he has seen fit to consult.
This is a strange vehicle by which to make a fundamental change in the whole basis of British immigration law. Let us be quite clear about this. These rules, to a greater extent than the statute upon which they are based, introduce fundamental changes into our immigration law. In Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and a number of my hon. Friends tried to discover the Government's intentions with regard to the regulations to be made in the light of the sections and article of the Treaty of Rome which lay down rules for the free movement of labour between the European Community and this country as a member of the Community. Time and again my right hon. Friend and his colleagues were told that the Government could not finalise the issue because negotiations were still going on. We now find that, under a strange parliamentary procedure, we are considering fundamental changes in the future position of this country vis-à-vis Commonwealth citizens, EEC nationals, and aliens who belong to neither group.
The Government could have been—indeed, they would have averted a lot of trouble if they had been—very much more helpful in Committee. They knew that they were negotiating our entry into the EEC. They knew that one condition of that entry was the free movement of labour. One is bound to ask whether the Government had not thought about the consequences of entry in terms of immigration policy, and why they were not able to tell the Committee in much more detail than they did what their intentions were. If they had done so the House would probably not now be facing a crisis with regard to its relationship with citizens of both the old and the new Commonwealth.
The Government's recommendations have been wheeled in to the considerable amazement of many hon. Gentlemen opposite. Many of them are surprised to discover that, under the rules, EEC nationals are treated better than Commonwealth citizens. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are surprised at this should have concluded that it was inevitable following the passage of the Immigration Act and our entry into the EEC.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the early day Motion that has been tabled by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I have one reservation about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are right to recall the debt which this country owes to Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but many of us on this side of the House and, I have no doubt, on the benches opposite, would wish to associate that with the debt that we owe to many members of the new Commonwealth who helped us in two world wars. During my recent holiday in France I recall seeing a notice which said "Imperial War Graves Commission: Indian Cemetery". We ought to remember that many members of the new as well as of the old Commonwealth laid down their lives when this country was in trouble.
I could accede to some of the recommendations made in the campaign being run by the Daily Express, but others I find rather offensive. Certainly the cartoon in the Daily Express was extremely offensive, and not one which the Opposition could, for a moment, support.
The Government have tried to get round the problem of Commonwealth entry and of the distinction between EEC nationals and Commonwealth citizens by the introduction of the principle of patriality. That is a nasty word for a nasty concept, because patriality is divisive within the Commonwealth. The old Australians—the people who emigrated to Australia two or three generations ago and who are in many ways closest to the habits and traditions of this country—possibly find it more offensive that patriality is conceded to first-generation Australians than that patriality was invented at all.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The Labour Government invented it.

Mrs. Williams: We did not. It was invented by the Lord Chancellor in another place.
In Canada, the concept of patriality is divisive in a disturbing way. The Canadian Government have repeatedly attempted to unite their citizens of British and French descent, but by introducing the concept of patriality we distinguish between them. A Canadian of French descent has none of the rights of patriality that are enjoyed by a Canadian whose father was born in the United Kingdom. It does not help the Commonwealth to divide the citizens of one of its members in this way.
I believe that the problem remains unresolved by the introduction of the patriality concept, and I suggest to the Government that whatever happens to these rules tonight they should seriously consider taking a fresh look at the whole question of citizenship of this country and immigration into it. What the Opposition have repeatedy called for, namely, consideration by the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the United Kingdom Government, of a policy of citizenship and a single immigration rule, might put an end to many of the distinctions with which we have to live as a consequence of our imperial heritage.
If I may say so without elaborating on it, for reasons that will be clear to the House, the situation with regard to United Kingdom citizens, United Kingdom citizens without the right of entry—such as Uganda citizens in the past—British-protected persons, Commonwealth citizens with the right of abode, Commonwealth citizens with patriality, Commonwealth citizens without patriality, and so on, is in such a mess that virtually no Member—and I include myself—can begin to understand what is allowed and what is no longer allowed.
This is a bad law and a bad situation for our citizens and Commonwealth citizens. That also applies to Irish citizens. We urge the Government seriously to re-examine all the citizenship and immigration provisions with a view to framing a single and simple law of citizenship, in conjunction with the members of the Commonwealth, so that as far as possible we can put forward a policy which is broadly acceptable to them.
I come to the basis of comparison. I deal first with the position of nationals of the EEC. The House will consider me dishonest if I do not say that I have always believed in the maximum free movement of people possible. I believe that that should apply to Commonwealth citizens and Europeans. When Ernest Bevin was the Labour Party's Foreign Secretary after the war he said that one of the objectives which he would most like to achieve—he did not live to achieve it—was the removal of borders and passports throughout the world. The House might say that that is an impossible ideal. Nonetheless, it is not a bad ideal towards which to strive. We do not want more restrictions between nations; we want fewer restrictions. I am not saying that I am opposed to the concept of easier movement of peoples between one country and another.
Articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty of Rome provide for the free movement of labour. That entails, as we know, that EEC nationals can come to this country for six months seeking work, and after that time they can stay—if they can get work—for four years, subject effectively to no conditions except that they do not become a burden upon the State's public moneys. They have the right to bring in their dependants without let or hindrance—children under 21 years, parents and grandparents. They are not tied to any employer or job. After succeeding in holding a job for four years they can seek the removal of restrictions on future residence and seek permanent residence in this country.
My first question, which is strictly technical, is whether the Government have satisfied the Community's treaty in the way in which they have presented the question of free movement of labour to the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was assured during the passage of the Immigration Act that there would be full discussion on this matter at a later stage. If the Opposition had not put down a motion tonight—or possibly if some hon. Members opposite had not signed an early day Motion—I am not sure that that pledge would have been carried out. That is an unsatisfactory position for Parliament. When France attempted to

introduce the free movement of labour by a circular to its immigration officials—that is, in effect, what these statements are—the Community found it unsatisfactory and later France was obliged to put a decree in the Journal Officiel of this year.
Secondly, are the Government satisfied that this procedure—first, technically in terms of the Community but, secondly, much more widely in terms of the rights of this House—is the proper way to introduce such a major change? A more important question for many hon. Members is that if the Government find that the free movement of labour—which I support in principle—has an unfortunate or unfavourable effect on employment in this country, which is already in a fairly serious state, will they consider the possibility of asking for the exemptions which are open to them?
The first exemption is provided under Regulation 1615/68, where temporary revocation of certain free movement provisions is allowed in a situation in which, to use the rather curious language of the Community,
There are regional disturbances in the labour market.
If the Government were to satisfy themselves, or be pressed by the Opposition to satisfy themselves—which seems to be more likely—that there was such an impact on unemployment in the regions, would they seek the implementation of the provisions in that regulation?
The second exemption is provided by the Joint Declaration on Free Movement of Workers of 25th January, 1972. At the end of that declaration there is reference to,
Certain difficulties for the social situation in one or more Member States.
That is a somewhat obscure phrase. I should have thought that serious unemployment was a social difficulty, and that under the Treaty of Rome the Government would be allowed to bring the matter before the Community's institutions. It would be helpful if the Government could give an assurance tonight that they will do that if there is any unfavourable effect on unemployment as a result of the free movement of labour.
I now turn to the position of the Commonwealth. As I have previously mentioned, under the 1971 Act and under


the Statement of Rules there are no fewer than five different kinds of Commonwealth citizen. They fit into a sort of order of hierarchy which might be best described by that famous passage from the Victorian hymn, which says:
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at the gate,
He gave to each his station,
And ordered their estate.
That is what the Government have done. They have created five kinds of Commonwealth and United Kingdom citizen. The rich man in his castle is the United Kingdom citizen with a right of abode in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] On these terms, that is absolutely right. That person has every right on his side. Under these terms he gets the most favourable treatment of all.
Secondly, there is the Commonwealth citizen who has no right of abode. The Ugandan Asians are an example. They are Commonwealth citizens, holding United Kingdom passports, who have no right of abode. There are still many United Kingdom citizens in the world with no right of abode in this country. Most of us are conscious of what that presents to us in terms of a dilemma which as yet is unsolved.
The third group are Commonwealth citizens holding certificates of patriality, and the fourth group are Commonwealth citizens who held residence when the Act was passed. Under the Act and the rules of Commonwealth citizenship they had the right of abode when the Act was passed. They are to be treated no worse than they were treated before the Act. Finally, at the bottom, there are Commonwealth citizens who are not patrial and who are not here. They are the people who will be less well treated under the rules.
These people, who are all Commonwealth citizens—patrial, non-patrial and the rest—will require some sort of papers to get into this country. They will require a certificate of patriality, an entry certificate, or a work permit under Rule 11. Under Rule 4, rather strangely, the proof of the right of abode in Britain is a certificate of patriality, but under Rule 49 the proof of right of abode is that a person was in Britain before the Act was passed.
I ask the Secretary of State—this is crucial, as the two rules say quite dif-

ferent things—to confirm and assure us, in order to put at rest the fears of Commonwealth citizens, that Rule 49 overrides Rule 4. That is not clear from the rules. Commonwealth citizens therefore depend upon the certificate of patriality, an entry certificate, or a work permit. The House must understand that the right of entry of a Commonwealth citizen, old or new, will depend, on his arrival at a port of entry, upon whether he holds a certificate of patriality, an entry certificate, or a work permit.
The experience of many of my hon. Friends is that in many parts of the Commonwealth it is extremely difficult to achieve prompt and efficient handling of requests for certificates of patriality, work permits or entry certificates. Most Members will recognise the difficulty. If the Home Secretary is to put the entire weight on having those pieces of paper, applications must be dealt with promptly and efficiently, and they must be given to people entitled to them as quickly as possible, because this is the source of a great deal of ill feeling in the old and new Commonwealth.
I come to three distinctions which are to be made in future and which I believe are unnecessary in terms of the rights, after entry, of Commonwealth citizens and EEC nationals. I repeat "after entry" because we recognise that the Government have power to restrict the entry of Commonwealth citizens to the numbers which they feel this country can absorb.
First, I deal with the question of dependants. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East pointed out time and again during the passage of the Immigration Bill in 1971, under the new rules there is no statutory right for the dependants of Australians, Canadians, Indians or other Commonwealth citizens to come to this country. It has been replaced by the weak vessel of Rule 37, which provides that citizens of the old or new Commonwealth who are settled here are entitled, under very strong restrictions, to bring in their dependants. That is much less satisfactory than a statutory right.
Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary for an assurance that no change will be made in Rule 37 without a full debate taking place in the House. Rule 37 is crucial. It is all we have to replace the


statutory right which has disappeared and about which Commonwealth citizens feel very strongly.
Consider what the situation will be for citizens, in this country, of both the old and new Commonwealth. They will be able to bring in their dependants—very restricted groups of dependants—only if they can satisfy the authorities that they are willing to support and accommodate them without recourse to public funds. Even if they can do that, they must go further. In the case of children they must show either that both parents are in this country or that the only parent in this country is the parent with full care and maintenance responsibility for them. There is no question of what is in the best interests of the child if the parents live in different countries. The only question is who is responsible for maintaining the child, with the onus of proof against the Commonwealth citizen.
A Commonwealth citizen cannot bring in his parents unless they are over 65 years of age and are wholly dependent on him. I know of an Australian family who want their mother to join them. She is under 65 years of age. Under the rule she will not be able to join them unless they can show that she is wholly dependent on them. Dependent relatives who may be very distressed can join their relations in this country only if they can show that they are wholly dependent upon them and that they would be living at a distressed standard of living in their country if they did not. Yet nothing like such stringent conditions are applied to the grandparents and parents of EEC nationals.
We are talking about a very small number of Commonwealth citizens who come here for permanent settlement—about 4,000 or 5,000 a year, of whom about 500 are Australians, 200 are Canadians, 100 are New Zealanders and 1,000 are Indians. Is it essential to make the dependants distinction so sharp between EEC nationals and Commonwealth citizens for the sake of a few thousand people?
Next, there is a sharp distinction in the rules on the basis of citizenship. For many years Governments in this country have taken powers to restrict the entry of Commonwealth citizens for permanent settlement, but they have always recog-

nised that a central feature of the Commonwealth is that if a person is accepted here for permanent settlement he has an automatic right to become a citizen of this country if, after five years, he satisfies all the rules and regulations attached to his entry. That right is withheld only when danger to national security might arise.
That automatic right disappears under the statements. It is replaced by a wholly discretionary right to become a citizen after five years of settlement in this country with full satisfaction of all the conditions. Yet after five years an EEC person can seek the removal of all time limits and, according to Rule 40, he or she will be permitted to do so unless there are objections.
I draw attention to this distinction. Under Rule 4 a Commonwealth citizen will be allowed to become a British citizen after five years only at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Under Rule 40 that time condition will be removed in the case of EEC nationals unless there are objections. In other words, there is a negative procedure for EEC nationals and a positive procedure for Commonwealth citizens. I do not understand why we cannot provide the negative procedure in both cases. The right of citizenship should be maintained after five years unless there are objections in either case. This distinction is wholly unnecessary, and very disappointing to the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth citizens will be allowed to settle for five years only if they have a work permit which ties them to an individual employer and a specific job. Their opportunity to remain here will literally depend on the good reports of that employer. I do not necessarily expect to carry Members opposite with me, but I hope that I shall carry my hon. Friends with me when I say that this gives employers a wholly disproportionate power which is totally unacceptable. It should not be right for an employer to have this life-and-death power over a Commonwealth citizen.
I come to the third set of distinctions which concerns the civil liberties of Commonwealth citizens. This is not now a matter of comparison between the EEC and the Commonwealth. It is something which the House, in its wisdom, should consider very carefully. On 8th March,


1971, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said that:
one cannot separate off the civil liberties of immigrants from those of the rest of the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 153.]
Nor is it necessary to do so. But the statements do it.
By Rules 43, 55 and 56 we have taken into English law the wholly unacceptable concept of deporting innocent people, namely, the family of somebody who has given cause for deportation. Under Rules 55 and 56, even if a woman can show that she is able to maintain herself and her children she can be deported against her will if the head of the household is deported. It is time that the House woke up to the fact that men and women increasingly expect to be treated equally, and that women should not be deported simply because their husbands have committed an offence. It is not suggested that husbands should be deported if their wives have committed offences.
Under the Rules there is no appeal against the condition that the arrival or entry of somebody is not
conducive to the public good.
There is no appeal against refusal of leave to entry and no appeal to remain in this country. Under Rule 69(b) of Control on Entry the immigration officer on his own can decide to refuse leave to enter on the ground that the entry of the person concerned is not conducive to the public good—and such a person may not then appeal.
This is serious, but what it further involves is that those who do not come with the proper papers may not appeal in this country; they may appeal only if they go home. Let us consider for just one moment what that rule means in practice. In the last fortnight it has meant that certain refugee families from Uganda have been refused leave to enter and sent back to Uganda—and presumably it is suggested that they appeal from there. What nonsense can we enter into when we do not look very carefully at these rules?
Surely the House can agree, on straight civil liberties grounds, that anyone who holds a United Kingdom passport or who is a Commonwealth citizen should at

least be allowed to stay on bail in this country in order to appeal, and that arrangements should be made to enable that to be done. If there is doubt that he will jump bail, keep him in detention, but do not let us send him back 10,000 or 6,000 miles before he can appeal.
Under Rule 38, if a Commonwealth citizen arrives in this country without his entry certificate he is refused leave to enter, and cannot appeal in England. But if a foreign non-visa national appears in this country without a Home Office letter he may be admitted for a short stay and allowed to appeal.
I am not sure that the House realises what this rule means. It means that if a forgetful Australian turns up without an entry certificate he will be sent back to Australia. If a forgetful Japanese turns up without his entry certificate he will be allowed to appeal in this country. If a forgetful Nigerian turns up without his entry certificate he will have to go back to Nigeria to appeal. If a forgetful South African turns up in the same circumstances he can stay here and appeal. There begin to be great advantages in being chucked out of the Commonwealth, and this seems to be one of them. I ask the House to consider what the effect would be on an Australian on seeing that a Japanese was allowed to appeal in Britain while he had to go back 12,000 miles before being allowed to appeal.
I turn to one last group of cases because, again, it is not clear from the rules how they are to be dealt with. There are many references in the rules to what are called cases of a political nature. There are three sorts of cases—national security cases, cases where there might be a breakdown of diplomatic relations between Britain and some other Power, and, finally, these mysterious cases of a political nature. It is not clear from the rules whether or not someone who is refused entry or is refused the right to extend entry, on grounds of a political nature, is entitled to appeal.
In Committee on the Immigration Bill the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), a former Home Secretary, referred to a right of appeal through an advisory board—not the courts—for those excluded on grounds of national security. He did not make clear what happened in the case of those excluded on a political


basis, but I believe that the House would be right to try to find out what is in the Home Secretary's mind about this very sensitive group of cases.
Because of our long imperial heritage and because, perhaps, of the burden of history, our citizenship and immigration laws are now in an almost totally inextricable mess. It is high time we began to sort this mess out—began to get clear, obvious and easily enforceable rules. We on these benches say that those rules should not make distinctions between people on grounds of whether they belong to the old or to the new Commonwealth, but because that is necessarily a long-term solution, in the short term I ask the Government—on the ground of the totally unnecessary distinction between Commonwealth and EEC nationals introduced after entry and on the ground of rules which are profoundly offensive to civil liberties and to civil rights—to take these statements back, redraft and change these most offensive provisions, and bring them back to the House for its further consideration.

6.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has asked very many questions. Some of them I will try to deal with, and later my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will also seek to deal with some of them. But I want to take up at once a number of the points that she put.
The hon. Lady made much both at the beginning and at the end of her speech about the urgent need for a basic review of our nationality law, and this is a point which has also been raised by her right hon. Friend. I certainly take note of that point, but it is not within our terms of reference tonight. I am sure that she realises, and I believe that she so indicated at the close of her remarks, this will be a profound, complicated and not at all easy operation, and in any case it could not affect the form that these rules should take, though we should take them into our consideration in future. I cannot therefore enter into detailed debate on that aspect tonight.
I should like to deal with one or two questions put by the hon. Lady about the

European Economic Community. We are certainly satisfied, and the Community itself is satisfied, that in presenting these rules we have taken proper account of the Community's free movement of labour requirements. I can assure the hon. Lady of that. I can also assure her that the British Government will invoke the provisions in the Community treaties and regulations and clauses about the social difficulties she mentioned. If the free movement of labour were to result in, to use the Community's term, disturbance of our labour markets in this country, this Government would make full use of all those provisions were the need to arise.
I assure the hon. Lady at once that Rule 37, about dependants, will not be altered, that it will be implemented in full, and that it will certainly never be altered without reference to Parliament. I repeat: Rule 37 will be adhered to in full, will not be altered, and will never be altered without our coming back to Parliament. I can give the hon. Lady that assurance.
It is right, too, that the hon. Lady and the House should bear in mind that the rules about dependants generally, and indeed many of the other rules she mentioned, show no material change as they are at present compared with what she and her colleagues had when in power. It seems to me that the trend of many of her questions implied a very strong desire to relax our controls. I am sure that many of us as individuals would wish to do this, but most of us, certainly the Government, and I am sure the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends, believe that, however much we might wish to do this as individuals, our duty to the country pushes us in the opposite direction. The hon. Lady does not make a point which would commend itself to the overwhelming majority of our people if she suggests that these rules should be relaxed.

Mr. James Callaghan: That is exactly what the rule says.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Lady is exaggerating when she takes some of these rules and quotes the maximum stringency which we can apply. If she is realistic about the pressures on this country to take immigrants from various parts of the world and the devices which the


Minority—only the minority, thank goodness, but still a substantial minority—try to use to overcome the obstacles which, alas, we feel we must put in their way, she must admit that the sort of powers that we have in these rules are necessary.
Of course, we do not always have to use those powers to the maximum. I believe that we have always used them with reasonable discretion and compassion, and I assure the House that we shall continue to do so. But that these powers are necessary to resist some of those pressures I have no doubt, and I would be failing in my duty if I advised the House that they should be relaxed.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I will not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but may I ask him this? His reference is clearly to Commonwealth citizens, since, obviously, the Government have opened the door vis-à-vis Europe. In view of the fact that the Government have total control over work permits, why does the right hon. Gentleman feel that an equivalence of treatment of dependants would create the pressures that he is talking about?

Mr. Carr: It is largely a matter of experience that we believe this to be the case. We have not yet had the experience of membership of the European Community. But one thing that anybody realistically believes is that the pressure of inward movement from other countries in the Community is almost certain to be fractional compared with the pressure of inward movement from the rest of the world and, in particular, from large parts of the Commonwealth. This is one of the facts of life, and if any Government disregarded that fact of life they would be guilty of gross irresponsibility to the wishes and interests of the British people.
These new immigration rules do two things. Their first and main purpose is to implement the Immigration Act of 1971. They are, in fact, a working document which lays down how the principles and policies incorporated in that Act are to be implemented in practice. Many of the points which the hon. Lady has raised today are the very points which were in dispute and were debated during the passage of that Act. I cannot deny that they are in dispute now, but, equally, we are still convinced that we are right in doing what we are doing, in the interests of the people of this country.
The second purpose of these rules is to make changes in our immigration practice consequential on our membership of the European Economic Community. When this Government were returned to office in 1970 we were pledged to introduce a much tighter control of permanent immigration into this country of the citizens of other countries. We made that pledge in recognition of the widely-felt need—I think that that is not too strong a word to use—arising from the fact that we are an overcrowded island and that we are not short of labour, least of all unskilled labour.
We said that we would implement this pledge by putting together the separate system which had hitherto applied to immigration, of aliens and Commonwealth citizens, into a single system of control applying to all immigration. We felt that this would be not only more effective but more easily understood, and in the end a fairer basis of control. That was the policy that we advocated at the General Election, that is the policy which Parliament endorsed in passing the 1971 Act, and that is the policy which these rules now implement in practice, springing from that endorsement—

Mr. Callaghan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Carr: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's agreement that we are implementing exactly what we said we would do and what I am sure the majority of the country wished us to do and still wish us to do.
What I now want to do is explain to the House the principal new features in these rules compared with our previous practice—

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose—

Mr. Carr: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, play started late.
The most important and the most obvious change, of course, is that in future all immigrants coming to this country for employment will need a work permit a particular job with a particular employer. These permits will not be issued if suitable resident labour is available or if the wages and conditions offered by the employer are less favourable than those obtaining in his area for similar work. Morever, they will be issued in the first place for a maximum period


of 12 months, although, once here, the immigrant worker will be able to apply for further 12 months' extensions and also be free to change his job, subject to the permission of the Department of Employment.
The immigrant worker will be able to bring his dependent family with him for so long as he is permitted to remain. If he stays for more than five years in all, he will then be able to apply for registration as a United Kingdom citizen if he comes from the Commonwealth or for naturalisation if he is an alien.
The objective which the Government believe that they will be able to achieve by this new procedure is the maintenance of the strictest possible control over the number of people who come here for employment, and the ability to do so in a much more flexible way than at present, since we shall no longer have to balance to the same extent as hitherto the need for immigrant labour to meet a particular shortage of labour in the country against the longer-term disadvantage of a permanent increase in our population resulting from an automatic right to settle here permanently.
The total number of permits issued each year will be kept under rigorous scrutiny, but there will be no fixed numerical limit on the issue of permits to Commonwealth citizens or foreign nationals except in seasonal employment in the hotel and catering industry and also except for special allocations for Malta and the dependent territories.
The Secretary of State for Employment will, in the near future, place a detailed statement of these revised arrangements in the Library, but I think that I have said enough to explain their main principle and purpose and to make it clear to the House that we are acting on the underlying beliefs that in this country we ought in future to be able to maintain our economy without steadily increasing numbers of immigrant unskilled labour brought in from abroad, and also in the belief that our population is already uncomfortably high.
While this work permit system will be the basic system on which we operate in future, there are four important exceptions to which I must now refer. The House will be well aware that the first

is the nationals of European Community countries. They will be free to come here to work and live, as we shall be free to go there. As has been long and widely understood, the concept of the Community as a free travel and free work area is fundamental to its whole idea and is certainly not negotiable. Nobody knows that better than the Labour Party.
Judging by experience in the existing six countries of the Community, however, the movement of labour into and out of any one country is not likely to be very large and is on the whole showing signs of decline.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: How do you know?

Mr. Carr: Judging by experience, it is not likely to be very large. But, as I have already made clear, if it were to prove much larger than was expected, and if it were to be in a unilateral direction—this was the question that the hon. Lady asked me—I repeat the assurance that I have already given, that the Government would not hesitate to use the machinery available under the Community rules and under the understandings to take action to correct, and protect ourselves from, such imbalance as would be caused.
The second exception to the work permit rule is that, of course, we shall continue to allow entry without work permits to people in certain specialist occupations, such as doctors, dentists, ministers of religion and those coming for employment from an overseas Government or by international organisations.
But there remain two further big exceptions of great importance to the Commonwealth. The first is that all Commonwealth citizens who have a mother or father born in this country will be free to come and go and to work and to settle here as they please without any restriction. The hon. Lady seemed to think that this was a very nasty concept. I find it difficult to believe that close family ties of that kind are a nasty concept, and I simply do not accept that the maintenance of direct family ties implies discrimination against others who do not happen to share them. There would be a pretty funny state in our social life if that were ever accepted.
Hitherto, this freedom has applied only to those with fathers born in this country. Now it is to be extended to those with mothers born here as well, and this will add substantially to the numbers who enjoy this unfettered freedom, particularly in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I myself have a nephew and nieces in Australia who after 1st January will be able to enjoy this freedom, which they did not do previously, and there must be many like me in this country. I cannot believe that that greater freedom will help or in any way accentuate discrimination.

Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Carr: I would rather not; I am pressed for time.

Mr. Skeet: It is on an important point.

Mr. Carr: Very well.

Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the New Zealand general elections will be held on 25th November and the Australian general elections will be held early in December, and that this matter is causing acute embarrassment to those Governments? Does he recognise that by what he is saying to them he is playing into the hands of the Socialists abroad?

Mr. Carr: I should have thought that in this House we should be concerned with the government of our own country and that we ought to mind our own business. That is what I am doing.
I believe that this is an important new freedom, and I wonder whether it is widely realised in the House, in this country and among the many residents in those Commonwealth countries who care about this that there will probably be some 5 million Commonwealth citizens with these family ties who will be able to come and go and do as they please with no control at all. We estimate the number as about 5 million.
The Government had hoped and intended that this number could have been still larger because, as the House will know, we had proposed in the original Bill that this system should apply to all those of the Commonwealth who had had any of their grandparents born here. Unfortunately, though, an amendment

moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West achieved the wholehearted support of the Opposition and the active or tacit support of some of my hon. Friends, so that the freedom was severely restricted and was given only to those whose mothers or fathers were born here. Still, even with this restriction there is complete freedom, as I have said, for probably some 5 million of our relatives in the Commonwealth—mainly, it is true, in Australia, New Zealand and Canada—to come and go in Britain as they please.
The second important exception to the work permit system as it applies to Commonwealth citizens is under what is known as the working holidaymaker scheme. This enables young people—principally, again, from the old Commonwealth countries, but not entirely—to come to Britain on a work permit and to work here for periods of up to three years. This system has been operating for a number of years already and will continue unimpeded under these new rules. On current form, about 15,000 young people a year take advantage of this scheme so that if they were all to take full advantage of the possibility of three years here we could have about 50,000 young Commonwealth citizens in this country under this scheme at any given time. That is also a very substantial number.
I now draw attention to a number of other changes in practice which will result from the 1971 Act and the rules which implement it.

Miss J. M. Quennell: Would my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Carr: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If it is the wish of the House, of course I give way. I am only thinking of the time.

Miss Quennell: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. Can my right hon. Friend explain the apparent anomaly in paragraph 55 of the House of Commons Paper No. 509 compared with Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome, which allows for freedom of movement of workers within the Community countries, from one country to another, provided they have a work voucher and a job to go to? Paragraph 55 allows them to come into


this country to look for work. It may be that there is a provision in EEC Regulation 1612 that I have overlooked. If my right hon. Friend would look into this matter I should be very grateful.

Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend has certainly asked a highly detailed and technical but, nevertheless, important question. It is true, as I understand it, that members of the Community countries can come here to look for work and do not have to obtain any permit in order to do so. Equally, it is untrue, however, as I understand it, that they can remain here indefinitely if they do not find work, unless we wish them to do so. I believe that that is the general situation. If my hon. Friend does not reply in greater detail tonight, I shall make sure that my hon. Friend receives a letter.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. Friend refresh his memory about Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome, which states clearly, in paragraph 3(a), that it is "offers of employment actually made" that they can come for?

Mr. Carr: I think that there is some misunderstanding here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because I do not think that this applies to offers of work actually made to individuals. As I understand it, under the Community system it is contemplated—though I think it is not yet in existence—that there will be basic information available for vacancies in different sorts of occupation. For example, supposing that we were short of 10,000 bricklayers in this country—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: With unemployment as it is?

Mr. Carr: In view of the rising house-building programme, I suspect that a shortage of bricklayers may be one of our problems before very long. But for any category one cares to think of we could register with the Community the fact that there were so many vacancies in a particular job or occupation. That is a very different thing to offering a particular job with a particular employer to a particular person. That, I think, is the very big distinction between the Community practice and the work permit

system which we are offering to everyone else.
I now draw attention to a number of other important changes which have been mentioned. The first concerns the right of Commonwealth citizens to register as citizens of the United Kingdom when they have been here for five years. Hitherto, as the hon. Lady pointed out, this right has been absolute. Now it will become discretionary. Every Commonwealth citizen, however, after five years will retain the automatic right to apply for registration, and this, I assure the House, will normally be granted.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Big deal.

Mr. Carr: But we shall now have the power, which many have thought for a long time that we ought to have, to refuse registration in odd cases if it is thought that a person is unsuitable for United Kingdom citizenship, either on grounds of character or on grounds of a lack of adequate knowledge of our language.
Those are the same tests as have been applied for a long time in considering an application for naturalisation by a foreigner, and we believe that this is a proper extra power. But I repeat that the automatic right to apply for registration remains and it is a right we should normally expect to grant.
The second main change concerns the individual's right of appeal against a refusal to admit or to extend his stay, or against a decision to curtail his stay or to deport him. With one important exception which the hon. Lady mentioned, the rights and machinery of appeal continue unchanged. The exception to which the hon. Lady referred and to which I now refer relates to the decisions taken personally by the Home Secretary of the day on grounds conducive to the public good.
If the Home Secretary decides to refuse admittance to a person on those grounds, that, as the hon. Lady says, will be the end of the matter. If, however, a person is already lawfully in this country but the Home Secretary decides that it is in the interests of national security, or relations between the United Kingdom and another country, or for reasons of a political nature, that he should leave the country,


the person affected will have no statutory right of appeal but he will have the right to have his case referred to three advisers who will operate on the same lines as the Civil Service appeal procedure operates now for security cases.
I realise that this is a very heavy responsibility to place on any Home Secretary, but I believe that it is the way which best matches the reality of the need. In the final resort, every country has to have the right to exclude people whose presence would not be conducive to the public good. By their very nature these decisions are not only difficult to make but, as I think we have learned from experience, difficult to submit satisfactorily to the normal judicial processes.
They are, above all, matters in which, certainly under our system of government, the Minister is, and ought to be, directly answerable to Parliament. Fortunately, these cases are rare, but they are difficult. I repeat that in every case in which an appeal is barred the decision will have to be taken personally by the Home Secretary of the day. Although it is a difficult change to make, I believe that it matches the realities of the situation, and that the accountability of the Minister to Parliament is the best, and in the end the only, way of dealing with these difficult cases.

Mr. Will Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Minister will be answerable to Parliament for the proceedings of the tribunal. Our experience over the years has been that where security cases in the Civil Service and elsewhere have been submitted to such a tribunal and hon. Members have tried to elucidate the reasons from the Minister they have consistently failed to do so. The Minister has only to say that it is not in the public interest to divulge the reason and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Carr: It must be admitted that matters of the security of the State are very difficult, and by their very nature they would not be in this category if they could be freely discussed. In the very difficult circumstances which arise I believe that the opportunity which the House has to question and demand such replies as the Minister can give is the best safeguard that we can have.

Mr. John Fraser: Under Rule 69(b) of the Control on Entry Rules an immigration officer—not the Secretary of State acting personally—may refuse leave to enter
in the light of the passenger's character, conduct or associations
if
it is undesirable to give him leave to enter.
If that occurs, will that person have a right of appeal at the port of entry, or is he to be returned to his country of origin to exercise a right of appeal there?

Mr. Carr: I should like to look into that question, but I believe that it is possible for such a person to have a right of appeal here. However, I do not want to mis-state the position, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is difficult for me to answer precisely on the spur of the moment. I think that the answer is that the appeal can be here. If I am wrong, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend puts me right. We will confirm that one way or the other.
The third change to which I want to draw attention concerns deportation. Hitherto, any Commonwealth or Irish citizen who has been here for more than five years could not be deported on any grounds. As from 1st January any such citizen who enters this country will remain liable for deportation no matter how long he has been here. This has always applied to aliens.
There will also be a new power, referred to by the hon. Lady and subject to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, to deport the members of a family the head of which has been ordered to be deported. I know that this provision causes alarm, and that it caused much concern during our debates on the Bill. If the head of a normal family group has behaved in such a way as to merit deportation, and if the wife is clearly unable to support the rest of the family herself, it does not seem reasonable in the public interest to have to maintain that family for years at public expense. Nor do I believe that it would normally be in the interests of the family to be so separated. After all, we pay great attention—I have heard this argued by the hon. Lady herself—to the need to unite families in connection with the Ugandan Asian problem.
I stress that this power will be used with great discretion and, I hope, humanity, and that the family concerned will always be given the chance to leave voluntarily rather than suffer deportation. I believe that from now onwards this right should be there.
In closing this part of my speech I emphasise as strongly as I can what I hope is already clear—that it has from the start been the Government's intention that this new Act and these new rules should bring about no material change in the rights of immigrants already settled in this country prior to 1st January next. I assure the House that no such changes flow from these rules. We are talking entirely about changes which can affect people who seek to come to this country after 1st January next.
In the last part of my speech I want to turn to those fears and emotions which have been expressed in recent days and weeks about the effect of these changes on Commonwealth citizens, particularly those with long and family connections with this country. I know that these feelings run deep, and they are none the less real or worthy of respect because many of them are founded in emotion rather than in reason.
However, many of the fears are based on major misundertandings of the realities of the situation. The degree of understanding has hardly been helped by the treatment that this subject has received in some parts of the Press. I know from my own experience—and I expect that many hon. Members share this experience—that many people have had a fear put into their minds, for example, that they will no longer be able to be visited freely by relatives and friends in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere in the Commonwealth. I assure the House and the country that there is no foundation for any such fear.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Secretary of State is the first one to say it.

Mr. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my letters show this every day. Neither these rules nor our membership of the Common Market will put any obstacles in the way of visits of this kind.
The number of visitors from the old Commonwealth countries has been rising

substantially in recent years. In the first eight months of this year, 109,000 came from Australia, 26,000 from New Zealand and 216,000 from Canada—about 350,000 in all from these three countries. Out of this vast total only 125 were refused admission on arrival at our ports.
This welcome and growing flow of visitors from the Commonwealth will be able to go on without obstruction of any kind from the changes we are discussing today.

Sir Robin Turton: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many were limited in their stay to a period of two months?

Mr. Carr: No, not without notice, but I believe the number to be very small. It is normal for the stay to be limited anyhow for six months and then to be extended in most cases. In a few cases it is limited. It is right to keep that power for the immigration officer; because if, in cases of doubt, immigration officers did not have the right to give a short period of entry they might be forced to make actual refusals which they do not make at the moment. I therefore believe that flexibility is right. I am sorry that I cannot, at any rate immediately, give my right hon. Friend the answer that he seeks. I have said that I believe that the number whose initial stay is less than six months is small. I will try to have the answer obtained for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: This is a most important point for many of us. Will my right hon. Friend give discretion to enable an extension of those visiting periods beyond six months, at any rate for a period such as 12 months? This, I think, is the heart of many of the objections of my hon. Friends who feel that these people should have a special chance to stay for a fair period in this country, particularly as they come such long distances.

Mr. Carr: I will consider that point, but it is difficult to give practical guidance to our immigration officers. Six months is a normal and reasonable first period for a large number of people. If they have to give no less than six months they might feel that they have actually got to refuse far more people than they do at


the moment. If they are encouraged to give longer than that they might start asking more questions than they do at the moment, and from my experience of the complaints that I have had, one of the things that Commonwealth citizens dislike most is having too many questions asked. Therefore, it is a matter of judgment, on the whole, that six months is about right.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The same as the Europeans.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman says, "The same as the Europeans." In other words, he would remove all control on Commonwealth immigration. He had beter consider what he is saying.

Sir Bernard Braine: Can my right hon. Friend say what objection there is to extending to Commonwealth citizens who are not patrials and who are in this situation no less favourable treatment than EEC nationals receive?

Mr. Carr: I do not think it is less favourable than EEC nationals receive.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Of course it is.

Mr. Carr: On the contrary, I do not think it is. It is less favourable, I think, in that immigration officials can on occasion allow less than six months. They can and sometimes do. But I ask the House to realise that this control of all Commonwealth citizens has to be exercised against a very strict inward pressure on immigration into this country. That is something we can never forget. It is no good hon. Members wishing they could forget it. They cannot forget it if, at the same time, they wish to maintain a strict control on Commonwealth immigration. We do put it on one side for what are called the patrials. We would have put it on one side for a much larger number of patrials. But the difference is—[Interruption.]—and I hope the hon. Gentleman is not too stupid to understand it—that there is novisible sign of any large-scale pressure, either actual or potential, for mass immigration into this country from the Common Market countries, whereas there is evidence of such pressure from the Commonwealth.

Sir B. Braine: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. He is obviously trying to cope with this

question with some difficulty. A moment ago he said that Commonwealth citizens who were in the category that we were discussing were not less favourably treated than were EEC nationals. If he will direct his attention to paragraph 54 of the Immigration Rules for Control of Entry he will see:
When an EEC national is given leave to enter, no condition is to be imposed restricting his employment or occupation in the United Kingdom.
How does my right hon. Friend reconcile that with his statement?

Mr. Carr: As I admitted a little earlier—I must say I thought that we had moved on to a different point—of course we realise that there is inherent in the EEC concept—and there always has been; it has never been cancelled—the basic idea that it is an area of free movement and of free work. That is true.
To that extent, of course—I have never sought to deny it—it is not true that this is more favourable than the privileges given to patrial Commonwealth citizens. It is true that in that respect it is more favourable than the conditions given to non-patrial members of the Commonwealth. But when it comes to the normal amount of time for which someone is admitted—six months before having to register, or anything of that kind—six months is the automatic time in practice with the EEC; it is the normal time for Commonwealth citizens of the non-patrial kind; it is a period which is easily extended and is usually extended merely by the asking. I do not think it would be right to lift that automatically, because if it were I fear that as a result immigration officers would have to ask more questions and refuse more entries. Therefore, on balance, I think that that would cause more rather than less ill will to the vast majority of Commonwealth citizens.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. To revert to the point that he made, that there is no evidence of large numbers coming from the EEC, is he aware that during the peak summer period large numbers of Italians come into the catering trade? At the moment they are controlled by work permits, but once the EEC rule applies they can come and stay provided they produce a Press


advertisement to say they are coming. If there is a shortage of housing and schools my constituents are not concerned whether the person concerned is Italian, French, German, or a Commonwealth citizen; they want to be satisfied that there will not be a large influx of these people, which will happen with EEC immigrants.

Mr. Carr: If it were to happen, there is provision under the Community rules to practices to deal with it. Secondly, I would point out to the hon. Member—who mentioned Italians—that under this Act, and even without it, the work permit system allows us greatly to reduce the number of Spanish and Portuguese, for example, who also come into the same industry. There is no doubt at all that we can reduce—indeed, we are this very year reducing—the number of alien workers.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They cannot be prevented from living in the houses.

Mr. Carr: Does the hon. Gentleman wish people to be directed in this country? If so, he stands on his own. That is a complete red herring. There is nothing in these rules or in European membership which in any way threatens the hon. Member's constituency or any other constituency.
Some of the reports that we have had suggest that citizens, particularly from the old Commonwealth, are now to be treated no better than aliens and worse than the citizens of EEC countries. If hon. Members will look at the situation as a whole they will realise that it is not only not true but is actually the reverse of the truth. An EEC citizen travelling to and from Britain will have to fill up landing and embarkation cards; a Commonwealth citizen will not. An EEC citizen who stays here will have to report to the police; a Commonwealth citizen will not. An EEC citizen who comes here will not be able to vote and stand for election. He cannot be elected, for example, to this House. A Commonwealth citizen can and will continue to be able to do so. An EEC citizen who comes to this country will not be able to join the public and Crown services; a Commonwealth citizen can and will be able to do so.
These are no mean or minor privileges which Commonwealth citizens will continue to enjoy along with British citizens and with no one else. If one looks at the total package one sees that it simply is the reverse of the truth to suggest that Commonwealth citizens are going to be treated as aliens, or less favourably than citizens from EEC countries. What is true—

Mr. Peter Shore: Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney)
 rose—

Mr. Carr: No. I have given way a great deal. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but there are many hon. Members wishing to speak, and I have given way very freely already. I do not mind, but every interruption takes up the time of the House and prevents others from taking part.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman ought to give way, because what he has said may inadvertently mislead the House.

Mr. Carr: If there be any question of my misleading the House, the right hon. Gentleman who is to wind up for the Opposition, can point out in what way I am said to have done it, and my right hon. Friend, I am sure, will be able to reply.
What we must face is that, because our island is crowded and because our own labour force is large enough for our needs, we have had to limit with increasing severity permanent working settlement from the Commonwealth. That is the will, and that is the wish, of the great majority of the British people. It is the policy on which the Government were elected, and which we are carrying out.
Short of permanent settlement, however, there is no doubt that large numbers of people of all ages come from the Commonwealth, and will continue to come from the Commonwealth, to Britain. They will be ever more welcome, and the changes which we are discussing today will not impose any additional disadvantages on them in their wish to do so. As I have already made clear, the advantages which they enjoy once they are here compared with citizens of EEC countries and other aliens are considerable.
I want to do everything I can in addition to make their actual entry into this


country as easy and as welcoming as possible. I am, therefore, giving instructions that at every port, sea port or air port, where it is physically possible, there shall be provided, as quickly as we can do it, four channels, one for the United Kingdom citizen, one for the Commonwealth citizen, one for the citizen of the European Community, and one for all other aliens. I intend to do everything possible to ensure that a special Commonwealth gate is always open and, if it is not, that it is made clear that Commonwealth citizens have then an automatic right to go through the United Kingdom gate.
Furthermore, I want to do my best to see that any unnecessary frictions are removed in the actual processes of entry. I believe—I think that it is fairly widely agreed—that the standards of courtesy and efficiency shown by British immigration officers stand very high by comparison with what happens in any other country. I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate and thank them for the services which they give in dealing with the ever-increasing number of those who pour through our ports. The complaints which we receive are very few.
However, I am now repeating and reinforcing the long-standing and generally well-observed guidance that Commonwealth citizens stand in a special relationship with this country and that, while the necessary questions must be asked and formalities gone through, the object must be to create an impression that a Commonwealth visitor is one whom we particularly want to welcome and to see among us. As next year progresses I shall be keeping a special watch on the way this new procedure is working, and at the end of 12 months' experience I shall have a full-scale review.
There is one other point which I should make. Recognising as we do the fears which exist and how important it is that our policies and practices should be properly understood throughout the Commonwealth, and that they should be moulded to take account as far as possible of feelings in the Commonwealth which result from their operation, the Government propose to enter, at ministerial level, into consultations with Commonwealth countries as early as may be convenient to the Commonwealth Governments concerned when these new powers come into operation so that if

they are causing frictions and troubles—which we do not expect—we may understand and give them the active consideration which we would wish.

Mr. Callaghan: That will be most welcome news, although perhaps such consultations ought to be prefaced by meetings of officials first. But now that the Government have made that decision today, will the Home Secretary explain why they refused an exactly equivalent proposition when it was made in Committee on the Immigration Bill as long ago as March, 1971, when his predecessor was told that this trouble would be coming?

Mr. Carr: In fact, we have been having considerable consultations at official level and exchanges of view when Ministers have met. What I am promising now is new further consultations. I am promising, whatever may be the preparation at official level, that there will be consultations at ministerial level at the earliest moments convenient to all the Governments concerned.
I want in conclusion, to make sure that we are clear about what the situation will be after 1st January. Shortly after that date there will be four categories of people coming to Britain—two kinds of Commonwealth citizen, and two kinds of alien, as the hon. Lady said. From the Commonwealth there will be those with close direct family links with this country whose fathers or mothers were born here, and there will be those without such links. From foreign countries there will be EEC nationals, and there will be other aliens.
Commonwealth citizens with mothers or fathers born in this country will have more privileges than those who do not, because they will have no restrictions of any kind. EEC nationals will have more favourable treatment than will other aliens. But what is perhaps more important to understand in the context of our debate today is that patrial Commonwealth citizens will be more favourably treated than EEC citizens, and non-patrial Commonwealth citizens will be more favourably treated than non-EEC aliens.
It is, therefore, simply not possible to maintain that in passing the Acts and bringing forward these rules we have not in every way possible, consistent with the


overriding need of this country to have a strict control of permanent immigration, given every privilege we can to the Commonwealth. That is what we have done. That is what we shall always continue to do.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: The Home Secretary has not answered the suggestion put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) that the new rules might be submitted to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. Our hope is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will do so when he winds up.
It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who first suggested that there should be a Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, and it was my privilege to be the first chairman. Together with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), we brought together a group of Members of Parliament, and it was agreed by all of us that we should study race relations and immigration factually and be objective in our reporting.
That Committee worked for a long time—two or three full days a week—and three major reports were produced, the one on coloured school leavers, the one on housing, and the one on the police. It is my belief that reports of that kind have done a lot to ensure that 20 years hence people will be able to say that that Committee of Parliament, by its objectivity, had made race relations in Britain better than they might otherwise have been.
I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary say that the new rules will not apply to immigrants already in this country. That is right. The majority of Commonwealth immigrants here today were recruited by employers to come here to help us at a time when our economy was at its lowest ebb. By their efforts in the factories, in the hospitals, in the transport service and so on, they have helped to make Britain a better place to live in than it might otherwise have been.
I take that view of immigrants generally. I believe that over the generations the British way of life has benefited be-

cause of immigrants who have come here and blended their cultures with ours, bringing new skills and all kinds of opportunities and benefits. They have made Britain a stronger nation than it would otherwise have been. Over the weekend I read with interest the report of the Conservation Society. I agree with much of that report. We cannot escape the fact that Britain is an overcrowded island. For this reason we have to consider what population our island will bear, consistent with our economic and social development. I believe that we have reached saturation point. I am not suggesting that we have no right to have the Uganda Asians here—the obligation was clearly upon us—but I do not believe that the Government took the action that was necessary at the time to ease the pressure upon us.
The Foreign Secretary may remember that when the statement was made I asked him whether other Commonwealth countries could absorb some of the Uganda Asians. If he had taken earlier and more positive action Canada and Malawi might have been more responsive at the beginning, and if they had come out at the time as ready to share the burden other Commonwealth countries might have joined in.
It disturbs me to have to make my next point because there are many who will say that it is likely to engender too much emotion, but I believe that before long we may have on our doorstep many thousands of other African Asians.
I was recently in Africa, where I spoke to many responsible African leaders. I found them under very strong pressures. There were accusations that the Asians were exploiting the Africans, who were being treated as second-rate citizens. I also met African leaders who were concerned and disturbed at General Amin's behaviour. They believed that he had lowered their standards, and they were as resentful as anyone else about him. But I could not find any African leader who would openly condemn General Amin and say that the Asian problem was one that they were prepared to share with us.
Upon my return from Africa I saw Lord Garner, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Institute, and various hon. Members who are interested in race relations, and told them that I was disturbed about the situation which was developing


in Africa, and that Britain might have thousands more Asians arriving sooner than it expected. I said that I would not say anything about it because I did not want to encourage that sort of thing. Last Wednesday, however, the BBC and other Press men said that Kenya was going to kick out the Asians—fortunately an exaggerated statement, but nevertheless a statement by a Permanent Secretary in one of the Government Departments. One does not fly a kite like that without some thought or consideration having been given to the matter.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Surely my right hon. Friend does less than justice to what the statement said. It is quite true that there was a false report, which disturbed many of us. All that the Permanent Secretary's statement said was that a number of licences had been withdrawn from Asian traders in accordance with the Africanisation policy, which we knew about and which we expected to take place. There was no flying of kites about mass expulsion of Asians from Kenya. My right hon. Friend is wrong to repeat that fear.

Mr. Bottomley: That is a matter of judgment. For the reason that I gave a moment ago, I knew that there was a danger in saying what I did. I believe, however, that time will show the truth of my words. I hope that I am wrong. Nothing would please me more than for that to be the case.
The Home Secretary has suggested that Commonwealth officials should meet and consider the problem arising from immigration rules generally. I should like to go further. The most burning issue in the world is that of race relations. We must get race relations right, never mind about the ideologies, and the conflict between East and West. I believe that the conflict will be between the "haves" against the "have-nots", and that it is obligatory upon the West and upon the Commonwealth to try to resolve the problem. It is worth a meeting of Foreign and Commonwealth Ministers to consider immigration generally. The Home Secretary said that the British Nationality Act was not a matter that we could consider tonight, but it is a fact that that Act placed an obligation upon all Commonwealth countries to create

their own nationality and to accept Commonwealth citizenship for all. Britain accepts Commonwealth citizenship, but it is not generally accepted. I think that I am right in saying that Britain is alone in recognising other Commonwealth nationals as Commonwealth citizens. There are several matters which must be considered in race relations and immigration, and this has to be done at the top level.
The last proposition that I want to make may be regarded as far-fetched, but it is worth making because race relations is an important issue in the world. It is not inconceivable for the United Nations to create, in a depopulated part of Africa, a neutral State like Switzerland. The United Nations could provide generous and substantial aid for the purpose of helping refugees from whatever part of the world they may come to settle in that State. Time prevents me from examining the new rules, but I share with hon. Members the view that the Government have bungled this matter, and I have no hesitation in supporting my hon. Friends in the Division Lobby.

7.48 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: This is one of those great opportunities when the House can act in a consultative capacity. After we have criticised the rules they can be taken back and amended.
So far the debate has not helped to alleviate my worries. I do not dispute the point about immigration for settlement. But the rules show a lack of imagination in their treatment of visitors from Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The background to the debate does not consist merely of the documents we are examining. The background is the numerous complaints that have been mounting up of inhospitality, sometimes amounting even to discourtesy by immigration officers towards Australians and New Zealanders in particular. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dismissed that suggestion as emotional and said that there was a major misunderstanding of the realities of the situation. I felt that there was when he was speaking.
There is the position of those people who cannot enter the country as patrials. It is a silly distinction because often a third, fourth or fifth generation Australian feels much closer to this country than someone who went out to Australia for a job and stayed there. If they come to this country they will want to travel around. They will probably want to go to Europe and spend their money. They may even take a job for the holidays. Those are the 30,000 cases where the documents completely fail to meet the situation. There is no mention of them in the rules for control on entry. I regard them as guidance to the immigration officers on what they should do to a man coming on a working holiday, but that is dealt with only in the rules for control after entry. These say that on a working holiday a person comes in normally for 12 months, which can be extended to three years. My right hon. Friend said that such people were given only six months, but that that period could be extended.
I have four recent cases of young men from Australia and New Zealand who spent £500 each to visit the mother country and, if possible, to see their own Queen, and who were told by the immigration officer "You can have two months''. When they later applied to the Home Office they were given a two-month extension, and then a final extension of two months, making six months in all. They were then told that they had to go. Those are the realities of the situation.
My right hon. Friend must face up to the problem. I suppose he will say that I have talked about citizens of Australia and New Zealand, and that he cannot make special provisions for those Commonwealth citizens. But they are in a different situation from others, because they have to save up about £500 to come here, and what is the good of their travelling from Australia to Britain for the experience of a lifetime and then to be told "Your total limit is six months"? They are terrified of the immigration department of the Home Office.
On 12th November a noble Lord who is a colleague of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke to the

Australian people about the matter in a broadcast. He said:
Four years ago I found great and genuine concern here for the way things were going in Britain.
We can understand that, because that was in 1968. He continued:
On this particular visit I have discovered that the concern is there, but alongside there has grown up a bitterness and a resentment of Britain which I find almost unbearable and unbelievably sad. This resentment and bitterness is based as far as I can tell on two things—Britain's decision to enter the Common Market and her new immigration policy.
Australians feel doubly let down. They have always believed that there was a special relationship between the UK and themselves. I was in Canberra only last week and a very senior politician told me he would never again go to Britain, which he loved, unless the immigration laws were altered and he no longer had to queue as an alien to enter Britain.
That was said by Lord Willis. My correspondence tells me that he expressed what is felt in Australia.
I had hoped that in the guidance to immigration officers, which is how I regard the statement of rules for control on entry, the Government would put the matter right. I beg my right hon. Friend to do so. If he says that that would be discrimination, my reply is that the statements abound in discrimination. Perhaps I may give a ridiculous example. Under paragraph 39 of the statement of rules for control on entry, an Australian girl who marries a British citizen is' to be admitted for settlement, but under paragraph 45 an Australian man who marries a British girl has no claim to settlement unless to turn his wife, who was born here, out of the country would involve particular hardship. We cannot stand for that. I beg my right hon. Friend to examine those paragraphs and at least put them right.
In view of the vast number of unemployed, I shall not ask the Government to make any concession on the question of employment. But I must give this warning. Under the paragraphs dealing with EEC nationals we are taking a great risk in opening the gates wide. Every EEC national who comes in will take a job from somebody in Britain, and probably have a claim for a house over someone who has been waiting on


a housing list for a long time. I do not want to enter the Common Market argument because it is something quite different, but Commonwealth subjects of the Queen should have an equal claim. Nowhere in the documents is there mention of Commonwealth subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. That is inappropriate in the week in which we celebrate her Silver Wedding.
I beg my right hon. Friend to take the documents back for further consideration. There would be no question of that being a Government defeat, because we are all trying to do the same thing. I want there to be clear guidance to the immigration officers to be more friendly, to be less like those we found in Germany before the war, which they are felt to be by the young Australians after their experience at the hands of my right hon. Friend's officers. There are far too many instances of discourteous behaviour to their guests.
I say to my right hon. Friend "Take these documents back and try to replace them with documents that can have the unanimous approval of the House."

7.58 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I agree with the basic point made by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), that the debate could provide a useful forum for a discussion and could have a positive rôle to play in framing our immigration rules and regulations.
This is one of those occasions on which it is possible to make a long speech detailing many issues. I shall resist that temptation and concentrate on just one or two, but the fact that I do not list all the civil liberty objections that could be listed, objections that are well documented by now, does not mean that I regard them as unimportant. I agree with what the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said about some of them. One of the reasons why I should like the regulations to be reconsidered is that we should look again at their civil liberty aspects.
One of the most powerful reasons why we should reject the rules and regulations has not yet been made. It is that unless we do so the House will have lost all control over immigration policy,

because we are no longer in the old situation where at least we had an annual debate. If we approve them the power passes to the Government, to the Home Secretary. Unless he proposes amendments and lays them before the House as statutory instruments—and he is not obliged to do so—have we any further say over what is to happen with regard to the rules and regulations for immigration?
That is wrong, and what I should like to see in a redraft, which I hope the Government will present to us next month, is that the draft rules and regulations will exist only for a year and that the Government will undertake to produce a completely fresh draft in the light of the experience of working the regulations in the first full year after our entry into the Common Market. That is a reasonable request, and it is reasonable that the House should keep as much control as possible over what is admittedly a very complicated subject.
As have many hon. Members, I have received representations against the rules, some of which are based on a complete misunderstanding. This morning I received a telegram from a constituent in New Zealand:
Please do all possible to ensure no change in the status of New Zealanders and Australians as a result of impending legislation.
There is no change in the status of New Zealanders and Australians. As we go into the Common Market and embrace the European concept of the free movement of labour, it must be supposed that the Government intended the consequences of their action. The commitment to the freedom of movement of labour was clearly known at the time the previous Conservative Government, the Labour Government and the present Government applied to join the EEC. Although we are embracing new policies within Europe, that does not of itself bring a change in the position of citizens in the Commonwealth.
Although I have come to the same conclusion as certain other hon. Members, that the rules should be redrafted, I do not share some of the objections that have been raised. Moreover, those who claim a special position for what in brief we may call the white Commonwealth must be clear what they are


asking for. In an article which appeared in the Daily Express by a New Zealander in Hong Kong the writer admitted that the last member of his family to leave Britain left five generations ago. Is it seriously being argued that we should redraft our legislation for the New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians who five generations ago left Britain to make their living elsewhere, to bring up their families elsewhere and to become citizens of other countries?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is what is happening with the EEC countries.

Mr. Steel: I am talking about a permanent open door for access to and settlement in this country.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is what the Commonwealth is all about.

Mr. Steel: That may be what the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) believes in, but if that is what people are arguing, let them say so. I do not believe that Britain or any other country in 1972 could decide to have completely free and open access for permanent settlement by anyone from any other part of the world.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Except the EEC.

Mr. Steel: Not the EEC. Those people do not come here for permanent settlement.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They can.

Mr. Steel: I do not want to get into that argument. I do not know what the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) did on the occasion when we debated the Labour Government's application to join the EEC—perhaps he voted against it—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I did—very solidly.

Mr. Steel: I give the hon. Gentleman the credit for that. In that case he is perfectly logical in his argument, but no one who voted for entry can object to the free movement of labour.
I will list three objections which I and my colleagues have to the rules as drafted. First, we find, as we always have done, the concept of patriality objectionable. It did not arise in the 1968 legislation but stemmed from the thinking

that was introduced by the Labour Government in 1968. One fundamental principle of our immigration rules—which I have even heard advocated by Conservative Ministers—is that once people are here they should be treated as equals. That is particularly true of those who are our citizens. One objection to the rules is that they embody the unilateral declaration of citizenship which the Government have created in respect of our EEC entry. For example, I understand that those who are our citizens who come here will not all be entitled to take part in the free movement of labour—only those who hold a certain type of passport. Those who hold the second category of passport will have to have been resident here for five years. That is a breach of the fundamental principle that all our citizens should be treated as equals. It is an objection which encroaches still further on the legislation which we embarked on in 1968. There is no reason why that should not be changed to allow all our citizens who are resident in Britain to participate in the free movement of labour.
Secondly, I emphasise the comment made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. Some time ago I had a constituency case which horrified me at the time, and still does. A woman who comes into Britain from abroad, whether from Australia or anywhere else, and marries a British citizen in this country has a right of abode, a right to bring up a family and a right of security to live here. If, on the other hand, a young man of any nationality comes in from overseas and marries a British girl, under our rules we say to that British girl "You have forfeited your right of abode in this country unless you are prepared to be separated from your husband." That cannot be right. It is a discrimination against women. It is fundamentally objectionable that we should tell any of our citizens that they have a choice between marriage and the right to stay here. That, surely, should be changed.
Thirdly, what is to happen to United Kingdom citizens of East African origin once these rules are introduced? The European Commission on Human Rights has already asked the British Government to engage in a dialogue with other Governments about our treatment of this category of persons before possibly referring the matter to the European Court.


What is happening about these discussions? What is the Government's intention. In the wake of having cleared up the Ugandan Asian situation we should be told what is to happen to the vouchers that are being issued in Kenya.
When I was in Kenya three or four weeks ago my impression was that there was no need for us in this country, or indeed for the Asians in Kenya, to panic about the continued programme of Kenyanisation in that country. It is some little time since the last batch of trading licences was revoked. Closer examination of the revocation of trading licences shows that, although they were revoked on paper, many revocations have not been implemented. Indeed, there are complaints, even from the Asian community in Kenya, that the process of Kenyanisation has not been seen to operate as well as it should have done. Although certain licences have been revoked, there is no reason for the Press to panic and imagine that there will be a repetition of the Ugandan situation. Two members of the Kenyan Government to whom I spoke said that they were determined to avoid a repetition there of the Ugandan situation.
Nevertheless, we are left with a clear commitment to British citizens of Asian origin in Kenya. Is it the Government's intention to transfer to Kenya those entry vouchers which were formerly allocated to Uganda? This would be sensible because it would help to reduce any possibility of tension there and would assist the orderly entry of United Kingdom citizens who have lost their means of livelihood in Kenya.
I strongly support the plea which has been made many times in the House for a thorough-going inquiry into our citizenship law and for us to start again on the basis of a law of citizenship as distinct from a law of entry into and exit out of Britain. Far from being a sop to those who are unhappy about the rules, the Home Secretary's announcement that throughout the country we shall solemnly erect four gates at every point of entry merely means that we shall erect monuments of folly over the present muddle of our immigration legislation.

8.10 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's assurance that he will without delay con-

suit at ministerial level with the Commonwealth countries over the working of these rules. I hope that those consultations will begin almost immediately, because there are matters that can be usefully discussed before the rules have been working for long.
By these rules the basis on which EEC nationals will be admitted to the United Kingdom after 1st January next is one of reciprocity. Community nationals can come here to work and settle, and our nationals can go to the countries of the EEC to work and settle on similar terms.
Within the Commonwealth for many years there has been a heavy migration of our people from the United Kingdom to Australia, Canada and New Zealand to work and to settle. I am sure that our Government would wish these opportunities to remain widely open to our people. If so, I am sure that they must grant greater reciprocity to citizens of those three Commonwealth countries to come to the United Kingdom to work and to settle. In recent years the numbers coming here to work from the three Commonwealth countries have been few, while those coming to settle have been far fewer, compared with the numbers of those emigrating from the United Kingdom to those countries. We should now consult with the Governments of these three Commonwealth countries and seek agreement with them on reciprocal arrangements. We should aim to accept each year, without procedural difficulties, reasonable numbers of their citizens seeking to come here to work or to settle.
In suggesting this, I am aware that the citizens of these countries do not all have their origins in the United Kingdom. Canada has indigenous groups as well as a great French-speaking community stemming from France, and, in addition, many from other countries. Australia and New Zealand, too, have populations drawn not only from the United Kingdom, but from many other countries, and they have their own indigenous groups.
Such arrangements of reciprocity should be subject to review at regular intervals, because we must in the end retain our right of control over the pace of immigration from whatever country, whether from the EEC, the Commonwealth or elsewhere. We must retain control, because we owe a duty to our


own citizens in this country, whether newly arrived or long-established.
I regard reciprocity as a perfectly sound and commonsense principle on which to base our relationship with all Commonwealth countries. Except to the three countries that I have mentioned there are few Commonwealth countries to which there has recently been a significant and sustained flow of emigrants from the United Kingdom seeking both to work and to settle. This principle of reciprocity is infinitely preferable to the device of patriality by one grandparent, put forward in the 1971 measure. I voted against that provision because, in a Bill which sought to impose comprehensive controls over immigration, this provision—which was mercifully rejected—would have landed the United Kingdom with an open-ended commitment to grandchildren throughout the Commonwealth and not only in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as the Home Secretary seemed to imply in his remarks. The idea of patriality by one grandparent was, in the long term, far too wide a relaxation of control, and we were justified in rejecting it.
The principle of reciprocity is a far better one. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will give an undertaking that the Government will have another look at this principle. I hope that, in particular, the Government will agree—and will say so tonight—to put this subject on the agenda for consultation with Commonwealth Prime Ministers at ministerial level.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: This would normally have been a rather cosy and erudite little debate about the application of the immigration rules, but instead we have had an emotionally charged debate, not about the rules but about the merits of the Bill which gave birth to them. It was a little surprising that when the Bill was debated on Second Reading hon. Gentlemen opposite did not raise the objections they raise now. My recollection of that debate was that it was not held before the most packed of Houses. Over and over again in Committee the Government were asked what the effect on the Bill would be of their plans to enter the Common Market. They refused to answer.
There were many distinguished and eloquent Conservative Members on that Committee but not one made a speech about it, and not one was prepared to support the posture and questioning of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is a little surprising that they should be kicking up all this fuss today. I wonder how many would have been here today, and how much interest would have been taken in the debate, had it not been for the campaign of the Daily Express. I pay tribute to the Daily Express; it ran a very effective campaign. It was evident at the time the Bill was going through the House, in conjunction with the Government's commitment to enter Europe, that these anomalies of which hon. Gentlemen are now complaining would arise.

Mr. Edward Milne: My hon. Friend has referred to the campaign of the Daily Express. I would like to make the point that had the Daily Express conducted its campaign against the Market with sufficient courage it, too, would have been raising this point at the time that we were voting for entry.

Mr. Davidson: I have said what I want to say about the Daily Express. It can answer for itself; it has a slightly larger area of the public for an audience than I have, unfortunately.
I do not base my objections to the EEC regulations contained in the rules on any prejudice towards foreigners; I hope that no one does. The time has now come for the full facts to be given to the public about how many people are likely to enter this country as a result of this measure. It is not an unusual request; it is a perfectly natural one. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) with whom I very seldom agree, has repeatedly and rightly said that the British public should be told the full facts.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps my hon. Friend will go one step further and ask the Government to do something positive. The Government should ensure that on entry these people go to areas which can accommodate them. The trouble arises because they are all gravitating towards areas where there are housing, education and social welfare problems. If the Government would only do something to encourage these people to go to areas where


they can be absorbed they would ease matters.

Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend can go one step further. I shall not go one step further. I have made the plea. My hon. Friend is capable of going one step further if he wishes.
I feel almost embarrassed to refer to the rules, but I intend to do so briefly. I find one or two features about the rules objectionable, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will deal with them in his reply.
First, I want to ask about the Home Secretary's powers for deporting people on the ground that their presence is not conducive to the public good. I agree that there should be some residual right in the Home Secretary—or any other Minister concerned—to keep or send out of the country people whose presence is clearly undesirable, be they criminals or a threat to security; but there are many other people, particularly businessmen who import undesirable business techniques into this country, whom I should like to see get the boot. However, I believe that they should have a proper right of appeal.
In Committee the Government were reluctant to give any right of appeal in security and political cases. They have now conceded—not just today, but in the Bill—that there should be a right of appeal to what has been colloquially termed the "three wise men". I should like the Foreign Secretary to spell that out a little more clearly. Will those who are to be deported or are to have their cases heard before that tribunal have a right of representation by lawyers or others, and will their cases be fully and completely heard? That is important, because the power to deport is very great. I do not think that any Home Secretary likes having that power and I should not like to give it to him. The present Home Secretary is likely to use it as fairly as any other, but it is not a power which should be given. If it is given, it ought to be used in the minimum number of cases and with the maximum number of safeguards.
The second rule, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin

(Mrs. Shirley Williams), is the offensive provision of the power to deport the wife of a man who is about to be deported. This is a power to deport somebody who has not committed an offence and whose conduct has in no way been anti-social.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is guilt by association.

Mr. Davidson: As my hon. Friend points out, it is the worst form of guilt by association. It is also treating the woman as a chattel, which, in this day and age, is a litle old hat anyway. In Committee I understood that this power would rarely be used. I am sure that that will be so. I have no doubt that in most cases the wife and other members of the family will want to go with the husband to preserve the family unit, so that leaves very few cases indeed. Why, therefore, in perhaps three or four cases a year at most, is it necessary to inflict this hardship on somebody who has in no way offended and might well have exercised a good influence on the husband?
I notice that this rule, quite rightly, does not apply to a wife who is separated and living apart from her husband. I do not want to put ideas into people's heads, but I think that this could be the greatest inducement to any woman to get rid of her husband and to break up the family unit. It shows that a rule which is itself offensive will always lead to unfair practices. This is a particularly offensive rule. In view of the few cases in which it would apply, I ask the Foreign Secretary seriously to consider whether it is necessary.
There are many other rules which I should like to debate at length, but I should not be popular if I did.
I was interested to hear that the Home Secretary is to set up four channels at Heathrow. That is very good. The immigration laws are chaotic, and it is time that a proper, sensible Bill was introduced—not a Bill of this kind, which should never have come before the House—to put them right. I believe that the chaos at Heathrow at those four channels will be even worse than the chaos that exists in our immigration laws.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I know that many hon. Members are anxious to have the opportunity to take part in the debate; so I want to refer to three points only, and that briefly. Two have so far not been mentioned in the debate; but they arise directly from the rules. The third leads on to the main preoccupation of most hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate.
First, I want to refer to dependants and the definition of "dependants" under the rules. Since control of Commonwealth immigration was introduced 10 years ago, it has been basic to it that, to put the matter broadly, those who are admitted or are settled in this country shall have the right, under certain conditions, to be accompanied or joined by their wives and children.
In both the 1962 and the 1968 Acts the meaning of "children" in this context was defined by Parliament as children under the age of 16, it being evidently maturely thought that children under the age of 16 could properly be regarded as dependent. Of course, there always was, and there was bound to be, a discretion on the part of the immigration authorities to admit as dependants children who were over the age of 16. Nevertheless, Parliament on two occasions deliberately fixed that age as the limit of dependency; and nothing in our experience of the control of Commonwealth immigration in the last 10 years has suggested that that age was then fixed too low.
In the 1971 Act, under which these rules are made, the right of admission of wives and dependants is, with one exception, left to be implemented by the rules. We therefore turn to the rules to see how that right is to be put into effect. We find that throughout the rules the dependent child is defined as a child under the age of 18. This means, in effect, that administratively, by the rules, a right which was defined previously by Parliament in one way has been redefined in a different way. It is, in a sense, a use of the suspensory power of the Executive to have substituted 18 as the age up to which admission as a dependant can be claimed as of right in the appropriate cases for the age of 16 which

was laid down by Parliament, not once, but repeatedly.
I do not think that this is right. While I do not think the House would wish to deny a discretion in the identification of dependants, I believe that on a matter of such considerable importance, where substantial numbers are involved—not merely in the first instance, but subsequently as a consequence—the rules should not basically alter what was the previous law as established, and twice established, by this House after due debate.
I am aware that under Section 1(4) of the 1971 Act it was accepted, as a result of an amendment in another place, that wives and children of those settled in this country at the time of the Act should be in no worse a position and have no less rights as a result of rules made than they would have done under the previous law. But it was the previous law, the 1962 and 1968 Acts, which defined those rights; and those are the rights which Section 1(4) continued. I hope that this important matter of the definition of a dependent child will be looked at, and looked at again, because the House ought to be jealous about the alterations to its past decisions which these rules represent.
A few days ago I put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I asked:
whether Pakistan is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as a Commonwealth country.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State replied conclusively and monosyllabically:
NO."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1972 Vol. 846, c. 241.]
So over this matter we are in the clear. Since Pakistan is not a Commonwealth country and is not the Republic of Ireland, it is a foreign country, and it follows, also, that those who are citizens of Pakistan under the law of that country are foreign nationals.
In these rules, as has been pointed out several times, foreign nationals are subject to more and different restrictions and different forms of control from other nationals, and very rightly and properly so. I take only two examples. The appendix to the rules for control of entry sets out the
foreign countries whose nationals needs visas.


It lists "Asia", with the exception of certain countries there set out, which do not include Pakistan. It follows from that that in future Pakistani citizens will require visas to enter this country. Again, under paragraph 31 of the rules for control after entry, the obligation to report to the police is applied to "a foreign national".
There follows from all this a very difficult consequence. During the last ten months the Home Office has repeatedly asserted that Pakistani citizens in this country have the full rights of British subjects; that, for example, they are properly entered on the roll of electors, and that no election offence is committed if they exercise the vote. So one of two equally unthinkable consequences follows. Either those Pakistani citizens who after 1st January enter under these rules are to be in a different position from their fellow countrymen already here—who, under the law of their own country, have exactly the same status—so that the post-January, 1973, entrants are not to vote here, are to report to the police, are to require visas, and so on, whereas the pre-January, 1973, entrants are to be treated exactly as though they were Commonwealth citizens.
Either there is that absurd and intolerable contradiction, or else, if the Home Office asserts that its ruling applies to all those Pakistanis who have passed through which ever gate or channel it may be, we have the ludicrous consequence that those who, in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government as well as in the eyes of their own Government are "foreign nationals" are, by an administrative decision, to be treated in this country as if they were British subjects; that is, as identical with those who are undoubtedly British subjects, of whatever grade or status.

Mr. Edward Lyons: When South Africa left the Commonwealth in 1961, was there not a time when South Africans were aliens to this country? But did they not remain Commonwealth citizens with voting rights in this country until the introduction of the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Act? The present Government have not brought in such legislation regarding Pakistan, so that we now have the same situation as we had in South Africa before there was legislation.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member is proving my point. It was because South Africa's becoming a foreign country would otherwise have immediately rendered its citizens in this country aliens that the Temporary Provisions Act had to be passed, and had to have effect from the material date. Indeed, the South African Act is one of the strongest links in this general argument.
What I have just pointed out is one of many illustrations of the truth spoken by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) when she said, as those of us who have concerned ourselves with these affairs know perfectly well, that our law of citizenship is in a mess. I see that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) is on the Front Bench opposite. I do not think that he or I would care to recall on how many occasions the argument on successive pieces of legislation has led us both to the conclusion that this country requires a new definition of "citizenship" and that immigration policies, unless they are founded upon a definition and concept of citizenship, are stumbling about in the void.
We have now an intolerable accumulation of legislation on this subject. There is the British Nationality Act, 1948. I was no admirer of many aspects of that Act at the time. However, a quarter of a century has elapsed since that Act was thought appropriate. Immense revolutions have taken place not only in the world but in the relationship of this country with the rest of the world. Therefore, definitions of status and concepts of citizenship which might well have been defensible 25 years ago are worse than useless today. Yet on to that Act, without altering the concepts which it introduced into our law, we have piled first one, then another and now a third Immigration Act, and finally, we have put the EEC on top of the lot.
Every hon. Member taking part in the debate is well aware of the wide and deep sense of public dismay which in recent weeks has been evoked by the realisation, produced by the publication of these rules, of what the situation will be as from the beginning of next year. That dismay has crystallised upon the position, real or supposed, of the citizens of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It often happens that a strong and deep public emotion of this sort latches on to


the wrong provisions in the wrong legislation. The public get the small print wrong. But when the public get the small print wrong, they very often get the heart of the matter right; and public opinion is, in fact, seized of an extremely important and real change which will take place from the beginning of next year.
It is technically true to say that, viewed in isolation, the Australian citizen—I am talking about not the patrial Australian but any Australian who in the eyes of Australia is a citizen of Australia; and they are all the same in the eyes of the law in Australia—has suffered and will suffer no loss of status as a result of the changes in the law which will come into force on 1st January. But status is not an absolute. Surely we all know that? The important thing about status is its relativity. That is true of poverty: poverty is relative. So is status; and the relative status of the citizens of Australia, New Zealand and Canada will fundamentally alter from 1st Janury.
What we have done is to take the reality of citizenship, which is a single, consistent whole—this is what the public will understand—and torn it into two parts. We have said to one set of people "You cannot come in except under certain pretty stringent controls. But, once you are in, you belong to us and you are not distinguishable from anybody else: you have the full rights of a British subject; you can vote, join the police, and have all the other glittering prizes available to British subjects." To another set of people we have said "You can all come in for work", and, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) pointed out, "not just a particular job; but in general principle you have a right of free movement and entry. However, once you are in, you are an alien: you cannot vote, or join the services of the Crown, or any of that."
That is an absurdity. The right to enter and leave the realm cannot be dissociated from the other aspects of belonging; it is one of them. If we tear these things apart, we find ourselves in irresolvable difficulties. That is the paradox with which we should be presented on 1st January. It is a paradox deeply wounding and injurious to the Commonwealth citizens—to the citizens of Canada, Australia and New Zealand—but it is

also intolerable to the people of this country, because they know that it does not correspond with reality.
During the debates on the European Communities Bill, as a matter of theory the question of full hearted consent was raised over and over again. Those of us who opposed that bill said—we were only repeating "Our Master's Voice"—that such a thing can only be achieved, and will only stand, if it is wholeheartedly willed by the generality of the nation. Of course, it would have been possible for the people of this country to have felt that they could embrace the citizens of Western European countries and that they were closer to them than to the citizens of Australia and New Zealand. But the fact is that they do not feel that way. They have not "turned away from the open seas", to use the famous phrase which President Pompidou put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In this matter, what people do not feel, the way in which they cannot feel, is not capable of being given reality and permanence as an institution.
If Britain's membership of the European Economic Community is not built—and it is not built—on the whole-hearted will and acceptance of the people of this country, then it is built upon sand. Hitherto these statements and discussions have been theoretical. Now we are to see them tested in practice. Even before 1st January we begin to see the first demonstration. The people out of doors do understand. In the end we shall have to hear them.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I believe that I am right in thinking that the hon. Member for Malden (Mr. Brian Harrison) and I are the only two actual Australians in the House, though I think it is also true that there are one or two hon. Members who have sought to become honorary members of Australia in one capacity or another. That being so, perhaps the House will allow me tonight to take off the cap I normally wear as the Member for Feltham and on this occasion wear my Australian cap.
For me, at least, the Motions that we are discussing are not merely a culmination of a long and, as I believe, politically dishonest progress whereby the British people have been led into an


association, the European Economic Community, which the majority of them do not want and, indeed, view with the deepest suspicion. The debate is also for me a moment of deep sadness since it symbolises in a very practical and effective way the end of the Commonwealth relationship between Britain and the country of my birth, a relationship which has not only been productive of great economic benefits in the shape of providing, particularly for the British people, good and cheap food, but has been a source of continuing benefit to our various export drives over the years. It has also played a not inconsequential part in protecting the security of this country in time of war.

Mr. William Molloy: Would not my hon. Friend also agree, following on all that he has said—which is so true—that if the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, had not been so obsessed with the Common Market and had listened to some of the appeals from both sides of the House to call a special conference of Commonwealth countries, many of these problems might have been resolved, and at least we would have acknowledged the great debt we owe them?

Mr. Kerr: There will be few hon. Members who could disagree with the infinite wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy).
Like my father before me, who fought as a member of the Australian Imperial Forces on the Western Front in the First World War, my first experience of this country was as a Serviceman, as a wartime member of the Royal Air Force Bomber Command flying Lancasters over Germany with, be it noted, a mixed Commonwealth aircrew. It never occurred to most of us who arrived in Britain to play our modest part in winning the anti-Hitler war that there was anything very special in young men 12,000 miles and more away downing tools, or it might be downing pens, and volunteering to playing a part anywhere in the world to win a war which obviously had to be won if the basic decencies of democracy were to be preserved and a new Dark Age was to be avoided. Commonwealth, we acknowledged, not only meant very considerable benefits in both

economic and political terms but also carried with it, we thought in our young, innocent way, many definite responsibilities.
It is not my purpose tonight to dwell on the romantic side of the Commonwealth relationship. Its record as a multiracial grouping of nations which has contributed substantially to world peace needs no special emphasis from me. But what does concern me is the quid pro quo that we have received in exchange for turning our backs on the Commonwealth and its peoples by our decision to join the European Economic Community, which has produced the need for these Motions. According to our European friends—the Euro-fanatics as they are sometimes uncharitably called—this major disruption in our affairs will all be all right in the end because Britain will have new economic opportunities as being part of a bigger market, and, therefore, the economic sacrifice of the Commonwealth is a regrettable but necessary step towards our economic viability.
Time alone will tell whether this turns out to be so, but personally I have the gravest possible doubts and so, more importantly, do an impressive array of top-level columnists who question very seriously whether a nation such as ours, situated on the periphery of Western Europe, with an industrial complex much older and, on average, much less efficient than that of West Germany, Holland and Italy—and joining the Community, let us remind ourselves, some 16 years after the original Six—is likely to be able to offset the major penetration of its own markets by corresponding penetration of Community markets. This, I repeat, is a highly dubious proposition.
What is not in doubt is that the Government, by trying to transplant the homeland of the British Commonwealth into alien soil, have effectively destroyed that Commonwealth. This is not the place to expound upon the ending of Commonwealth Preference and the cheap food policy and the reciprocal easier markets for British exports which was the other side of that same coin. It is sufficient to note in passing that, to its credit, my own country, Australia, saw the writing on the wall a decade ago and by and large has made "other arrangements", which very much—I think regrettably—include the


USA and increasingly Japan and China, but which substantially—I very much regret this—today exclude the United Kingdom.
This is not something that most Australians wanted to see, but they had to face facts. The most prominent of these facts was that, despite ties of kinship which were greatly strengthened by a common peril surmounted in two world wars, Britain or, rather British Governments thought that they saw their salvation in Europe. So, with mixed feelings of sadness and incomprehension, Australia began to go its own way.
Unhappily, our sister Commonwealth nation in the Antipodes, New Zealand, has not been so far-sighted, and still rather pathetically clings to the hope that when the present interim guarantees expire in a couple of years prospects will continue fair. I hope for its sake that it is right. Unfortunately, we in this House know only too well the form of the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose capacity for concealing from the House the underlying truth of any situation has been demonstrated on so many occasions, and never more so than on those occasions when he was telling us about the so-called guarantees that he had allegedly extracted for Commonwealth countries from his prospective European partners.
I do not wish to rub salt into the serious economic wounds of our New Zealand cousins, but I devoutly hope that the impending election there will result in a Government a little less gullible and innocent than the one which has just had the cleaners expertly put through it by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Apart from being fine rugby players and splendid farmers, New Zealanders can fairly claim to be among the most loyal of Commonwealth countries, and their likely end at the hands of this Government will, I fear, be a warning and an object lesson to all.
It is bad enough for New Zealanders to have to suffer, along with Australians, Canadians and the rest, the indignity of being denied access to Britain while European Community citizens come and go as they please. What is even worse is to see ruined, through the glib assur-

ances of a smooth-talking political salesman, the work of generations in the shape of one of the world's finest farming communities, which has provided this country, as I said, with good and cheap food for generations and which may well now be facing a period of sharp economic distress. New Zealand surely deserves of us much better than this.
Thus, we face tonight the melancholy spectacle of a great nation which many of us here, born in Commonwealth countries many thousands of miles away, had learned to look up to and even to regard with, perhaps excessive, nostalgia as our homeland, which had, in a relatively short space of time performed the near-miracle of transforming an empire with a dubious past into a meaningful Commonwealth mainly based upon democratic decencies and the rule of law, but which now, because of the short-sightedness and lack of a sense of history of our temporary masters, is about to be sacrificed upon the altar of an alleged larger market for our goods in Western Europe and a wholly spurious internationalism which, in fact, is little more than a rich man's club designed to protect the economic interests of the favoured few of this earth at the expense of that half and more of the world's population who will go to bed hungry tonight.
If this is, indeed, to be the last chapter in the story of the British Commonwealth—I fear that it very nearly is—not only does it fill me with a deep sense of shame and sadness; it makes me angry as well. Speaking on this occasion not only for my constituents and a majority of the British people but also for countless millions of other Britons who, whether by chance or design, live in Commonwealth countries overseas, I deplore the two-faced, mean-minded and shortsighted attitudes which have brought this once proud nation to the abject posture symbolised by the Motions upon which we shall be voting tonight.
I hope that sufficient hon. Members on the Government benches—I begin to doubt this, though, when looking across the Chamber—who pride themselves above all on their patriotism and their loyalty to the Commonwealth ideal will join with me tonight in throwing out a measure which would deny our birthright and brand this once illustrious country as a "dingo" nation, unwilling and afraid


to shoulder the great and noble responsibilities of leading what could still be a major factor in world peace, the British Commonwealth of Nations.

8.56 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I found his speech singularly disappointing. Surely he must be aware—indeed, the whole Government must be aware—of the very deep concern felt by the people of this country and certain Commonwealth countries overseas. Let us be clear as to why there is concern.
It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, that for Commonwealth citizens coming here, whether or not they have a right of abode, since 1962, the situation has not changed in an absolute sense, except in one very small particular, but it is naive in the extreme to lead us to believe that their relative position will not be changed adversely as a result of the arrangements for European Economic Community nationals who come here after 1st January. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary glossed over that, although I thought that I put the point to him quite clearly. From that day, EEC nationals who mean to take a job or to establish a business in this country will be admitted automatically. The rules are quite explicit on that. No questions will be asked. After six months they will be given residents' permits if they have secured jobs or established businesses.
Let me make it plain that I do not question that provision. It was an obligation which we accepted—or, at least, the majority of us accepted—when we decided to enter the EEC. It is a reciprocal obligation. If EEC nationals come here, our nationals have the right to move freely in the Community. In company with many hon. Members on both sides of the House I happen to believe that this presents great opportunities for our people, but I see no valid reason why the creation of new rights and privileges should be at the expense of older and proven relationships.
It is clear from the flood of telegrams and letters that I have received in the past few days that great numbers of people in this country value their con-

nection with our kinsfolk in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and are praying that the Government will listen to them. Some of the messages I have received are most moving. I do not wish to make any appeal tonight on a basis of sentiment or feeling, but I must say that the flood of messages that I have received has deeply moved me.
I refuse to accept that people of British stock coming her should be treated worse than aliens, but this is happening. Consider the anomalies in the present position. We grant patrial status to an Australian who has a British mother and a Yugoslav father, but we deny it to someone all four of whose grandparents may have been born in this country. A British girl who marries a nonpatrial New Zealander—I have a particular case in mind—and who wishes to go on living here is obliged to leave the country if she wishes to remain with her husband. Is that right? Is it moral?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, on Report he did not move an appropriate amendment to the patriality clause in the Immigration Bill?

Sir Bernard Braine: I am not here to talk about what happened then. There were many discordant voices. If the Government had stuck to their guns, as I wished them to do, and had preserved the grandfather patrial provision we would have covered practically the whole living population of Australia and New Zealand of British stock. The hon. Gentleman need not ask me for the reasons why the Government did not take that course.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. He had the opportunity on Report, when the Bill came back from Committee, to make the very point that he is now making. Yet he remained silent and allowed the Bill to go through. Why did he not protest and move an amendment then?

Sir Bernard Braine: One might well ask why the other 629 Members did not grasp the point at that time. This is a futile argument.
The hon. Gentleman interrupted me in the middle of an argument based upon the realities of the situation. Consider, too, the insensitive and stupid treatment


of non-patrials by the authorities which operate these rules. I have here details of a number of cases. The House should understand how the present rules are being operated. I quote from a letter written by a former major of the Grenadier Guards—an Australian who served 16 years in the British Army and who arrived back in this country where his family lives and where he has property:
There was no passport officer at the barrier marked 'Commonwealth and Irish'. I had the alternative of going through the United Kingdom or the alien barrier. You would be very mistaken to believe that an Australian subject of the Queen will willingly accept the appellation of an alien in that same Queen's Kingdom. I was rejected from the British passport desk by an Indian passport officer and told, so that all could hear, 'You bloody Australians want the best of both worlds'.
Why should not this Australian who served in the British Army for 16 years have the best of both worlds? Britons in their turn, providing that they have a clean bill of health and no criminal record, can take a job in Australia or New Zealand without let or hindrance.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: I will not give way, because I have a number of illustrations to give and I think that the House would like to hear them. One of my correspondents writes:
My local vicar is an Australian. Incidentally, he served nine years on the staff of Westminster Abbey during the 1950s and then spent eight years back in Melbourne and is now back here. His son aged 22 is finishing at his university shortly and then must return to Australia within six months. He happened to be born in Melbourne but has spent practically all the years of his life in this country.
Is such treatment necessary? Does it make sense?
Or take the case of a young New Zealand solicitor who is a non-patrial. He writes:
I am a solicitor, and normally my wife and I do not dress in what might be regarded as "hippie" fashion. Yet on almost every occasion when we have passed through the Immigration Department on returning from holidays on the Continent we have had an unpleasant experience. A typical occasion was when returning to this country from Holland at Christmas time via Harwich, we were told by the port immigration official on duty that as a married couple we were not allowed in this country on a working holiday and should therefore have approached Immigration singly

and separately. On that occasion we were detained and had to wait with a handful of intending Asian immigrants whose papers were not in order.
Finally, let me mention the case of a Member of the other place, a former ADC to Her Majesty, who commanded a British regiment in war and who returned recently from a trip abroad accompanied by two Members of this House. The latter were admitted through the United Kingdom barrier, but because he had an Australian passport he was made to queue up and was asked by an official, whose origin—so far as one could gather—was not from this country, what was his purpose in coming to this country.
That sort of thing is happening every day of the week. I want an assurance tonight that such administrative stupidities will be brought to an end. As long as treatment of this kind is handed out to people of British stock, who in my view have every right to come to this country, the Government cannot expect me to give my approval to these draft rules.
For me the matter does not end there. It is not just sentiment that causes me to reject the idea that Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders should be treated less favourably than EEC nationals, although I am not unmindful of the sacrifices that people from Australia, New Zealand and Canada have readily made when our country has been in peril since the beginning of the century. But it is my profound belief, as a Commonwealth man, that in the long run it is in our own interest and that of the enlarged Community that we should not damage connections with our kinsfolk overseas, which spring from a common race and language, natural affinities, and a good deal of shared experience in good times and bad.
There is a way out of this dilemma, if the Government have the will to take it. It is to accept the principle of reciprocity of treatment. It happens that Australia, Canada and New Zealand are all lands not only where Britons have settled in large numbers but where it has been the deliberate policy of successive Governments in this country, certainly since the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, to encourage them to settle. Indeed, the Australian and New Zealand Governments contributed by giving assisted passages. Over


many years taxpayers' money here has been voted in support of this policy. It is that which distinguishes Canada, Australia and New Zealand from other Commonwealth countries.
To be fair to the Government, they originally proposed a patriality provision which would have extended to persons with a grandparent born in this country. Had that provision been accepted and not struck out of the 1971 Bill, practically all Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders of British stock would have been covered.
My proposal is that we should have the courage to recognise what has been reality all along, namely, that since 1922 at least it has been recognised that there is a special relationship in this field between ourselves and certain other countries. Since 1946 over 2 million Britons have emigrated from this country to Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
I am very glad to hear from the Home Secretary that the Government have taken the advice of some of my hon. Friends to enter into negotiations with Commonwealth Governments. But the Home Secretary did not spell out exactly what form those negotiations will take. Will they be with all Commonwealth Governments, or, as the Motion that I put down—signed by many hon. Members—suggests, with the three Governments most closely concerned? What are the discussions to be about? My Motion suggests that they should be about the principle of reciprocity, because that is what the public in this country expect the Government to discuss.
It is essential, before we make up our minds on what we should do tonight, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary makes absolutely plain what the discussions will be about. For my part, at least, on the strength of that I shall decide what to do.
What I have proposed cannot be regarded as discriminatory against the new Commonwealth countries, for they are not countries of British settlement. They do not offer our citizens reciprocal rights. It is perfectly understandable that they do not do so, and I have no criticism of them on that score.
Indeed, we have already discriminated in the matters that we are discussing

tonight. We discriminated long ago, when we recognised citizens of the Irish Republic—which is outside the Commonwealth and, in a technical sense, is a foreign country—and accepted that they should have the full privileges of citizenship in this country, including the vote. I do not question that at all, because the Irish are one of the mother races of the British empire and Commonwealth.
Second, we discriminated in favour of Gibraltar. If we could discriminate in favour of Gibraltar, why not in favour of Australia, New Zealand and Canada? Third, in the 1971 Act we discriminated by extending the patrial provision from reference only to a father born in this country to reference also to a mother born in this country.
The Government have clearly breached their election pledges in respect of immigration. I make no complaint on that score, but if they accept the suggestion which I have made they will have widespread support, certainly from these benches and, I believe, from the country as a whole. I again urge them to withdraw these draft rules, otherwise I cannot find it in my heart to support them in the Lobby tonight.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: This is a narrow debate, and we are subject again to that pressure of time which sits constantly upon our proceedings in the House. Were it otherwise, I should be tempted to comment on some of the interesting questions which have already been raised, and, in particular, to join issue with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on his theory of the position, in private international law, of Pakistani citizens. I suspect that he was having a little fun with us, since he knows very well that the definition of British citizenship stems from the British Nationality Act, 1948—which he himself mentioned—and that the countries to which it applies are listed by name in Section 1(3). Pakistan is there, and that remains the law of this country.

Mr. Powell: So on that assumption the hon. and learned Gentleman is agreeing that the nationals of a nation which we say is a foreign nation are in this country British subjects? As long as


he admits that absurdity I shall not bother about the details.

Mr. Archer: For once, I find myself in the unusual position of being wholly in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I go further—I am wholly in agreement with him when he goes on to conclude from that that we urgently need an overhaul of the whole of our citizenship laws. In that respect we both agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). However, as I said at the outset, I shall resist the temptation to pursue that and similar issues because the question of our citizenship laws, the need to permit greater freedom of movement among nations, and the need to produce a kindlier and more hospitable world, are matters which we must debate on another occasion. I only hope that the Leader of the House will take due note of the fact that this is a narrow question, and that there are much wider issues which many of us wish to debate.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves the question of the law and embarks upon the politics of the matter, may I take up one point? He has mentioned the British Nationality Act, 1948. That Act has given me considerable trouble in a recent matter about which I have been trying to knock some sense into the Foreign Office. Is he aware that under that Act it is sometimes difficult for a British subject, of British birth and of British parents, who has been in the Services abroad—the situation of a constituent of mine—to obtain a British passport? [Interruption.] I am not blaming anyone, and I am not making a party political point.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): It was a Labour Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member or Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is making an intervention. Mr. Archer.

Mr. Archer: Mr. Archer rose—

Mr. Price: I would have been brief and I would have finished by now if it had not been for the rude interjection by the Prime Minister. I put it on record that a British person who has served in

both World Wars—in the Navy in the first and in the Army in the second—was denied a British passport until I took up his case with the Foreign Office.

Mr. Archer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. But I have one eye on the clock. My hon. Friend's comments all stemmed from what I regarded as an innocent comment that this was too narrow a debate. We would like an opportunity for a wider debate, and I look forward to that occasion, when my hon. Friend will be able to develop his argument.
Tonight I confine myself to four very narrow points on four specific rules. They all relate to what were referred to earlier as civil rights matters. I do not care whether they apply, on any specific occasion, to someone from the old Commonwealth, someone from the new Commonwealth or someone from the EEC. In my book they apply to human beings, and they relate to those human rights which all of us here would claim for ourselves. If these matters are regarded as Committee points it is because, unhappily, there is no Committee stage. The first relates to Rule 41 of the rules governing control on entry. Among other things, that rule sets out the circumstances in which a child might be admitted to join a single parent in this country.
The first of these situations is where the other parent is dead. That is understandable. The second is where the parent in the United Kingdom has had sole responsibility for the child's upbringing. One might have thought that that meant sole responsibility as between the two parents; that it related to the situation where the other parent had abdicated responsibility for the child, but, as I understand it, it has been interpreted by immigration officers as excluding the situation where anyone else has at any time shared in the responsibility for the upbringing, of the child. If the grandparents have ever lent a hand, the child is excluded from the benefit of the rule. I hope that the Government can take these rules back and—assuming that the rule in question did mean what, in common humanity, it should mean, rephrase it so that in future it is interpreted accordingly.
The third situation in which the child may be admitted to join a single parent


is where, because of family or other considerations, exclusion is undesirable. The rule offers one instance as an example. It says—as an example—that exclusion is undesirable where the other parent is incapable of looking after the child. That has been interpreted for some reason not as an example but as a ground for excluding all cases which fall outside it, so that where the other parent is capable of looking after the child but has deliberately abdicated responsibility and lost interest in the child, the child, having already been deprived of one parent, is precluded from being cared for by the only parent who offers parental affection
If those two instances stood alone they would be examples of sheer heartlessness, and in my book would justify voting against the rules tonight.
I come now to Rule 43, which provides for the admission of dependent parents over the age of 65. Many of those affected come from countries where people are physically worn out in their mid-fifties, and, where, normally, they retire and look to their children to keep them at an age at which in this country a man is very much in his prime. The result of that rule is that many of them are not likely to be admitted before they are dead.
I was told today that the expectation of life in India at the age of birth is only 57. In most Indian states people in the Government service retire automatically at 55. Even in this country there is pressure for earlier retirement, so that folks can enjoy a period of ease while they are young enough to be active. But some of us can recall a time, only in the 1930s when, in conditions of undernourishment and the absence of medical attention, people were retiring in their fifties not to enjoy life but simply because their health had broken. There are still countries suffering from that degree of undernourishment and lack of medical attention.
If we turn to Rule 44, which relates to other distressed relatives, we find the following exception at the end:
The concession should not be extended to other relatives or to people below 65 save in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances.
There is no equivalent provision in Rule 43. That seems to entail that parents under the age of 65 are not to be ad-

mitted, even in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I can add to that. The appeal tribunal has ruled that that is its understanding of the rules, with the result that even in the most distressing circumstances parents from abroad who are quite unable to work and who have not yet reached 65 cannot be allowed to enter unless the Secretary of State uses his residual discretion, which is not appealable.

Mr. Archer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an instance of what has happened to individuals, and I know it is a matter that my hon. Friend regards as being of considerable importance that, although the discretion of the Secretary of State is appealable, his refusal to exercise his discretion to override the rules is not regarded as being in itself discretion, and therefore it is beyond appeal and none of the appeal provisions apply to it.
With one eye on the clock, I turn briefly to Rules 23 and 24, which apply to au pair girls. When we are trying to eliminate discrimination, I am not clear why there is no such creature as an au pair boy. I do not see why a young man who wants to come to England to learn English and is prepared to lend a hand knocking in nails—a job which, in my house, is always waiting for the next parliamentary recess—should be precluded from doing so.
All that is required for the admission of an au pair is that the immigration officer
is satisfied that an 'au pair' arrangement has been made".
It may be of the loosest nature—one in which each side is completely vague about its obligations and expectations. After the au pair has arrived there is, so far as I am aware, no provision for supervision.
The relevant rules for control after entry—Nos. 17 and 18—make no provision for anyone going to see what has happened in the working out of the arrangement. No one asks whether the au pair is happy, whether she has been turned out of the house the day after arriving, or whether she has walked out—[Interruption.] Some Conservative Members seem to find that amusing, but we have heard most disturbing stories that


girls have discovered on arrival at a house that they are expected to share it with a single male, or that because they have come home late they have been turfed out without notice and without the opportunity of packing their things, though, happily, this does not happen on many occasions. There are Conservative Members who take a more serious view of the matter, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who has a very distinguished record in this respect.
Why do the Government persist in their refusal to insist that there should be a clear written agreement before someone is admitted for au pair purposes? There has been drafted by the Council of Europe a convention on au pairs which the Government have declined to ratify. We have still not been told why, although there have been several vague parliamentary answers. The Government are refusing to accept responsibility for the people they have admitted. If our daughters were in a similar position we might find it disturbing.
Rule 58, happily, preserves that tradition of political asylum in which Britain has a most distinguished record. But how is that rule to be reconciled with Rule 69, which states that a person may be refused leave to enter on the ground that his exclusion is conducive to the public good? Recently, two officers from Morocco sought asylum in Gibraltar. Although they claimed that if they were returned to Morocco they would face a capital charge, they were returned. It was never explained in what way their presence was otherwise than conducive to the public good, but they were returned, protesting that they would face a death sentence. They were, and they did—to the eternal discredit of the authorities who returned them.
The Press has speculated lavishly on the politics of this debate. It has been predicted that various sections of the House would haves particular axes to grind and would vote accordingly in the Lobbies. This may be a political question, but it relates to men and women, families and individuals. All they ask is to be permitted to live as families in peace, in a way which we take for granted. In rejecting these rules tonight the House will

demonstrate that we care about the way in which people live.

9.27 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: I count myself among those hon. Members who are genuinely disturbed that our immigration policy and these rules in particular are doing a lot to sour our relations with the old Commonwealth. That is brought about as much by a misunderstanding of the rules as by the rules themselves. I understand those misgivings. I have three brothers and sisters who have spent most of their lives in Canada, and about a month ago I came back from a visit to my sister in Australia. She is married to an Australian who served with distinction in our Royal Air Force in the war. I therefore have heard it all at first hand.
Nevertheless, concerned as one is, the best way to show that concern is certainly not by voting against the rules tonight. To do so would be to show complete confusion as to what the rules are about and from where they came.
The Bill that gave rise to the rules was given a Second Reading in March, 1971. Its main object was to control immigration; to control coloured immigration—let that be quite clear. It was not said so in print because we are sensitive about these things. But early in his speech the Home Secretary of the day said that the purpose of the Bill was to "help with our community problems." That is exactly what he meant.
The Bill was passed by a majority of 30, and it implemented one of our election pledges.
The rules are the logical outcome of the Act; and if put into force they will produce the effect at which the Act was aiming—the control of immigration.
While achieving its objective, without harm to the present position of our friends in the old Commonwealth. Had the Bill gone through in its original form it would have been more advantageous to them because the patrial clause in the unamended Bill was stronger, and some millions more citizens in the old Commonwealth would have had patrial status.
We are continually told by those who know more than I do that the state of our law of citizenship is in great disarray. If it is in such disarray that we cannot have it theoretically correct, let us at


least see that it works and copes with the realities of the situation. Great play has been made comparing the position of Commonwealth citizens with those from the EEC. We have had fanciful statements about floods of citizens from EEC countries coming here and receiving a great welcome while the door is shut to our Commonwealth relations. At a more moderate level the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) made the same comparison.
What sort of flood will come? I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give us as good an estimate as he can of the numbers of immigrants we are expecting from the EEC countries. I believe there will be practically none. Why do people leave their home country to work in another?
There are three obvious reasons. They may leave for higher wages, in search of a higher standard of living, because jobs are easier to get or because the climate is better—as in California, where the population has doubled every 20 years.
Perhaps 20 years ago people might well have come from other countries to the United Kingdom because of better wages, but not today. Wages in this country are slightly below the average of the EEC countries.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Prices and incomes.

Sir P. Bryan: Our wages are certainly below such countries as Germany and Sweden. As for jobs, in the last five years it has been easier to get a job on the continent than in this country. People are unlikely to find our climate attractive.
If hon. Members really think they will came, will they say which industries will attract them? At the moment 57,000 immigrants come from Europe every year to work here. Well over half are employed in the service, restaurant and hotel trades. Only about 4,500 apply for work in industry The numbers of applicants went down by 29 per cent. last year. It can be seen that there is no trend in the direction some hon. Members have suggested, and I feel certain this influx will not materialise. The flow is growing in the other direction. We cannot get figures from all the countries, but recent figures from the German census showed that

15,000 skilled Englishmen are working in the industry there.
My hon. Friends who say that they will vote against these rules are really saying to the Government "Take these away and bring them back in 40 days, improved to our taste." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think that is a good plan; not much can be done in 40 days. The rules as they are are effective in carrying out the main object of the Act. As to their defects I prefer the assurance of my right hon. Friend that he will start, with Commonwealth Governments, discussions at ministerial level. I hope that when he does so he will not fail to stress and acknowledge our special ties with the old Commonwealth.
I would have talked about reciprocity, because I believe that is where the most hopeful policy lies, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) has already done that extremely effectively, and I leave those thoughts with the Foreign Secretary. A policy of reciprocity would work out in favour of the old Commonwealth as regards numbers. Some people may say that we are discriminating in favour of the white Commonwealth.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Sir P. Bryan: People in many places will probably say that we are discriminating by race. However, our record in racial matters is so good that we can stand up to any charges of that kind, especially after this Government's record on the whole question of the Ugandan Asians.
I am extremely glad that the debate is to be wound up by the Foreign Secretary. He was a most distinguished, humane and admirable Commonwealth Secretary, and no one understands the Commonwealth better. I look forward to his assurances.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The Immigration Act, which has given birth to these rules, was born in the Conservative Party's manifesto and was supposed to reassure the British people about immigration. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary how the Act and the rules will affect immigration into this country in terms of what went before.
The streams of immigration into this country are not large, but they fall into easily discernible categories. One is the stream of dependants. Nothing in the Act or in the rules, if the Government's assurances are to be believed, affects the rights of dependants of Commonwealth citizens to come here. Last year 28,000 of the 38,000 Commonwealth citizens and United Kingdom East African Asians who came here were dependants. If we take out dependants from the reckoning in the rules and the Act we are talking about a small number of people.
The next group covers United Kingdom East African Asian citizens who, although not Commonwealth citizens, are now lumped in with them in the statistics. Excluding the recent Ugandan crisis, they are coming in at a rate of about 12,000 a year. Excluding dependants and United Kingdom East African non-dependent adults, a very small number of people is entering this country.
For example, the official statistics for the first six months of this year show that total immigration into Britain of Commonwealth citizens and East African Asians—black, white and brown—was 18,104. Of those, 6,000 East African Asians came in with British passports, which brought the number down to 12,000 Commonwealth immigrants. Of those, 1,250 or 1,300 were Australian, New Zealand and Canadian. Therefore, we are running down to comparatively low figures—about 10,500—in the first six months of this year. Excluding the dependants and the East African United Kingdom citizens who are not affected in any substantial way by the rules or the Act, astonishingly enough we come down to 2,421 non-dependent Commonwealth adults coming in in the first six months of this year.
Taking out what I call the ANZAC element because many people do not seem to object to or regard them as in any way dangerous, on the Government's figures we get down to 1,860 in the first six months of this year.
As the Act and the rules do not operate on dependants and East African Asians, presumably the Government's object was to do something about immigration by operating on employment vouchers. The rules and the Act do not come into

force until 1st January, 1973. Yet in the first six months of this year, using the present system, only 826 Commonwealth employment vouchers were issued, and of those 230 were issued to the ANZAC countries. Fewer than 600 employment vouchers were issued to the new Commonwealth under the old system. That is 1,200 in a year. The Government say that they will cut out employment vouchers—which will save 1,200 vouchers in a year—and replace them with work permits. It is clear that, although there is provision for 8,500 people to come in on employment vouchers, the total entry this year under the existing legislation will be a fraction of that figure.
The Government are clearly issuing employment vouchers—there is no appeal against the refusal of one—only where the case for granting one is 100 per cent. That is precisely the sort of case in which the Government will issue work permits next year. The fact is that the Act and the rules do not affect net immigration into this country, but in order to justify what they have put in their manifesto, the Government invented a polyglot Act with patrials, nonpatrials and various classifications. Not only should the rules be taken back and reconsidered, but the Act, too, should undergo the same treatment because it was a fraud on hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported it.
The reasons for opposing these rules are not that the Australians are said to be affected. I do not see how an Australian will find it more difficult to come to this country next year than he did this year or last year. I say that because the EEC rules affect only people coming here to work. If an Australian wants to work here he will find himself at a disadvantage compared with someone from an EEC country, but if he wants to come here as a visitor he will be able to do so quite freely.
As the Australian present position will not be affected by the rules in any fundamental way, I cannot see why the points that have been raised today were not raised during the last year or two. Only 1,000 vouchers will be issued this year to Australians and New Zealanders to work here, which shows either that they have been discriminated against for years or


that few of them want to work here. That being so, I feel that those who have been speaking for them have not fully understood the effect of the rules. Many of the speeches tonight have been based on anything but a close study of them.
I can understand hon. Members objecting to EEC nationals coming here to take jobs. If that is the basis of their objection, that is an argument for objecting to the increased right of members from EEC countries coming here to work, and not an argument for more Australians and New Zealanders being allowed in to take jobs in this country. A person in Britain would not understand the difference between his job being taken by an Australian and his job being taken by a Frenchman. One would have thought that the argument more logically would have been against the new EEC advantage and not in favour of allowing increased Australian labour, and I therefore do not understand the basis on which the case is put.
The rules offend civil liberties. Reference has been made to the rule under which a wife and children can be deported because the husband is being deported. It is clear that that rule will not affect many people. That is why the Government should think again about it. They can afford to be generous in this instance. It is interesting to note that no dependant will be subject to deportation if the breadwinner has been here for more than five years. In other words, we are talking about people who have come here since 1st January, 1968; that is, in the five years up to 1st January, 1973. No breadwinner from the Commonwealth can be deported under the new Act if he arrived before 1st January, 1968. Therefore, his wife and children are safe. Since then only 18,000 adult breadwinners from the Commonwealth have been allowed into this country with employment vouchers. That is roughly 4,000 a year from 1st January, 1968, until the end of 1972. There has been a fall this year. Substantially only those 18,000 breadwinners are liable for deportation under the Act. Many are Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians.
In five years only 7,600 Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh and West Indian male adult voucher holders have been allowed into the country. Therefore, the Act will

mean that for a range of offences any of these 7,600 could be eligible for deportation. The rules and the Act say that when a person has been here for five years up to the date of conviction in respect of which he is liable to be deported, or when a person has been here five years altogether, he becomes free of the risk of deportation. That means that on 1st January, 1974, a quarter of the 7,600 will drop out as they will no longer be eligible.
Within five years no person at present resident in this country, nor his dependants, will be eligible for deportation under the rules and the Act. The rules create a situation where if a man arrived here four years ago with a wife and child and he has a child born here—for example, last year—and he is ordered to be deported, his wife and elder child can be deported but as the baby is a United Kingdom citizen by birth it has the right to stay. The parents could take the child away but they would not be obliged to do so. Consequently, this provision can divide families. The Government should reword the rules to make the situation a little easier.
It is true that if someone has settled here by a trick—for example, a person who has exceeded his limited stay here and by a further trick gets his wife and children in—his family will be eligible with him for deportation. However, it is unlikely that there will be many such cases. It would be interesting to know how many families would have been deported if the Government had had this power in the last five years. That might give us a guide for the future. Certainly in the future decreasing numbers will provide little opportunity for such action. In five years the deportation rules will be dead in respect of these people.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that if speeches are restricted to about seven minutes each I can call every hon. Member who I think should be called.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: This morning The Times got the point of this debate in persective when, in its leading article, it said that this was
The price we pay for hypocrisy
and referred to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. 1962, which is the beginning


of all the trouble which we have been debating. In that Act no differentiation was made between the old and the new Commonwealth, despite many representations which were made to Ministers and many objections which were raised. The result was that we lost many friends overseas, we angered our friends in the old Commonwealth, and we did not grasp the nettle of the social problem that we were facing in this country as a result of immigration.
I oppose the Motion and intend to vote against it unless we are given very strong assurances by the Government, because it tends to codify a situation which I resent and which was brought about by the 1962 Act and subsequent Acts, and because it gives preference to a number of groups of people over people and members of the old Commonwealth with whom we have always had a special relationship.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that certain regulations and administrative arrangements were being made to make it simpler for people from the old Commonwealth to come to this country. It was said that they were allowed to come here originally for six months a a time. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) confirmed what I have found in a number of instances—that young people from the old Commonwealth are allowed in for two months at a time and then must have their passports endorsed.
Over the last 18 months things have become very much tougher for young Commonwealth migrants or visitors to this country. This has led to it being extremely difficult for them to obtain first-class jobs. A large number of young Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians have been working in the City of London and in industrial firms. These people, furthering their professional experience, have returned to their own countries and have tended, in their business dealings, to be oriented by and to purchase British products. But, as the regulations are drafted, they are at a disadvantage compared with people who come from Europe.
Much has been made of the emotional and sentimental arguments adduced in

some newspapers and in what people have said. But we must look at the hard cash reasons for allowing young Commonwealth people freedom to come to this country and enjoy the special relationships and special positions which they previously enjoyed by means of the working holiday. That will not operate if a restriction of two months or six months is put on them. They must be allowed a reasonable period from the word "go", and should not have their passports endorsed periodically.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): My hon. Friend is making a case concerning the restriction on young visitors from the old Commonwealth who wish to come to this country. Will he take it from me that the number of cases in which such people have been allowed in for less than six months over the last few years is infinitesimal? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirmed today that the working holiday arrangements, to which we attach just as much importance as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison), will, under the rules, continue entirely unaffected from 1st January next year. I wished to make the position clear in order to avoid misunderstanding.

Mr. Harrison: I am most grateful for that intervention, but I hope that the period for which these people will be allowed to stay will be on the two- or three-year basis of about 18 months ago, and that they will not have their passports endorsed for a six-months' stay as they are at present.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman makes his point about the old Commonwealth, but why should his argument not apply with equal force to a country like Jamaica, which has had a longer association with this country than has had Australia, and was, indeed, a colony of this country before Australia was even discovered?

Mr. Harrison: The important thing in relation to the old Commonwealth countries is our reciprocity over migration. Those older countries take emigrants from Britain, and we should be prepared to take short-term or reasonable-term immigrants from them.
These rules put us in a most ridiculously anomalous position with regard to some of our colonial territories. For instance, a number of French territories and some Dutch territories will be able to send people directly or indirectly into the United Kingdom. People from Guadaloupe will be able to go to France and then come into the United Kingdom, or come straight into the United Kingdom, because Guadaloupe is a department of France. The same thing applies to Martinique, Reunion and French Guiana as well as to some of the Dutch territories. How ridiculous it will be for British subjects in the Seychelles to find people from Martinque and Réunion able to enter Britain more easily, with less restriction, than can old Commonwealth people, or even they themselves.
The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) missed making the point that in the previous rules of entry—and it is a very personal matter to both of us—Members of the United Kingdom Parliament were to be admitted without hestitation. This provision, I notice, has been removed, so perhaps when one of us wants to go out of the country we must both go, because of a fear that the one might be kept from returning and so upset the Government's majority.
A simple way in which the whole matter can be dealt with is, if we can, to put those countries which take our emigrants into exactly the same position as that referred to in the statement on the common travel area. In other words, people from the areas that have had settlers under the Empire Settlement Act should be allowed into a travel area as defined in the rules—that is, the common travel area comprising the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and islands which are associated with this country. if such an arrangement is to be pursued by our Government I will be prepared to support them tonight, but I shall not do so unless there is a very firm undertaking that it will be done.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My opposition to the rules we are now discussing has nothing whatever to do with my opposition to the European Economic Community. In fact, the only thing on the credit side of our entry into the EEC is the easier exchange of

nationals that will be permitted between the different countries. Had this provision been tied up with the freer movement of people from the Commonwealth to Britain and into the EEC we might have been beginning to think about a Socialist case for joining the Community.
It is quite disgraceful that we should be taking action against Commonwealth people and putting them at a very great disadvantage compared with EEC nationals.
What upsets me about the non-patrial Commonwealth citizen who comes here to work is that he is first allowed to come here for 12 months on a work permit. His ability to stay for any longer period will depend entirely on the report that he gets from his employer. What would happen to any active trade unionist from the Commonwealth, a non-patrial, who kicked up a fuss about wages and conditions? His employer could say "We know what to do with him—out he goes, back to where he came from." This is one of the most sinister aspects of the rules. It is wrong that employers should have such a strong power over workers, wherever they come from. If the Government are defeated tonight, I hope that they will at least be prepared to change that.
I ask hon. Members opposite who disagree with us about the patriality provisions to realise that they themselves bear some responsibility. When the Bill came back from Committee, they remained silent. It is a bit much for them tonight to attack people who reduced patriality from the grandfather down to the father or mother on the ground that they disagreed with it. If they disagreed with it, they might at least have raised it on the Floor of the House.
There is a lot of false emotion about the patrial. I have often asked myself why there are no patrial aliens. We have patrial Commonwealth citizens. Often we have trotted out here, especially from hon. Members opposite, remarks about how the Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders fought on the British side in two world wars, particularly the latter. There are aborigines in Australia who fought during the war and they have no patrial rights. There are Maoris in New Zealand who fought in the war and who also have no patrial rights—never


mind the Indians and the people from Ceylon and other parts of the world.
What will happen to a British citizen who leaves this country and emigrates to the United States, who may have had an excellent war record? He may keep up his ties with his homeland as much as anyone in the Commonwealth. Because one of his children is born in the United States, that child will have no right of patriality. There is no logic about this. It is a matter of emotion and of whom one wants to get into this country and whom one does not.
I hope that the Prime Minister will be told that people other than English people died during the last war. Many Scotmen were bitterly upset when he kept talking at the Remembrance Day Service about "England's fallen dead". There were Scotsmen, Irishmen and Welshmen too who died, as well as other people from the Commonwealth.
One of the most damaging features of these rules is family deportation. It is nonsense that even when a woman is able and willing to look after and support her family she will be deported from this country with the children. It is an even bigger nonsense when the majority of the children are United Kingdom citizens by birth. Is it not nonsense to have the power to deport someone at the age of five when at the age of 18 he will be able to come back with an automatic right of entry? Is it not nonsense to be able to deport them at 15, perhaps, when in three years they can automatically return? I do not see how the Government can square that with any sort of compassion.
Among the categories of people exempt from conditions of entry, in addition to businessmen, are religious leaders, under paragraph 27. I would ask the Home Secretary to take one point particularly on board. I understand that in the Islamic and Hindu faiths there is great concern that a number of their religious leaders should have been subjected to severe restrictions while the members of the Christian faith are allowed into this country freely because they happen to wear the requisite clerical collar. I hope that the conditions of religious leaders will be taken into account and that this will be put right at immigration level.
This whole business was properly exposed by the right hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) who said that the whole basis of the 1968 and 1971 Acts was to prevent coloured immigration to this country. He at least was honest. Many hon. Members opposite share that feeling but do not express it openly.
I hope that tonight we shall send these rules back, because they are utterly inhumane. Let us contrast the possibility of a worker who comes to this country being tied to his employer with, for example, a businessman who comes here on a visit and is allowed to carry out his business as he wishes.
For the reasons I have stated, I hope that we shall oppose the rules, but not simply on the basis that they will allow free access of people from the EEC.

10.5 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I shall accede to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the shortest possible speeches.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary make the point that there has been a great deal of exaggerated emotive opposition to these rules in certain sections of the Press and elsewhere. Having said that, let us acknowledge that there has also been a good deal of special pleading on the other side of the argument, to which some of us have been subjected. We have, for instance, been told that all we are doing in these rules is to follow our pledge in "A Better Tomorrow", which it would be quite wrong to breach.
Passing lightly over the reflection that those pledges have not proved wholly sacrosanct, page 24, which is the main, new immigration feature of "A Better Tomorrow", says,
We will establish a new single system of control over all immigration from overseas.
We have already broken that pledge. We have made an exception, an administrative exception, in the case of Gibraltar. I thoroughly applauded it. We have also made an exception in the case of patrials, about which we all know, even though they may be currently one generation away as opposed to two. Tonight we shall be making an exception in connection with the European Economic Community. So already that pledge is broken, and I cannot see why if common sense


demands it, we cannot vary it more from now on.
A little further down on the same page we were told that work permits in future for permanent settlements of Commonwealth immigrants here would not include dependants. We all know that that restriction was included in the original Immigration Bill in 1971 and was overturned in the other place, and that dependants are now included for future immigrants as well as past immigrants. There have been these two changes, and, whatever view one takes, I hope that we shall hear nothing more of the fact that certain pledges made in 1971 must remain irrevocable because they have already clearly proved to be not irrevocable.
There are two obvious ways out of the difficulties that we face. First, we were defeated by only two votes in Committee on the question of extending patriality to two generations; in other words, to any one father or mother or to any one grandfather or grandmother. Had the Government shown the same readiness to make amendments in the other place in this matter, which they did not make in this House, as they did in other cases we should not be in this mess tonight. Everyone knows that to be so.
There would be nothing whatever wrong in the Government now attempting, in a very short amendment, to return to what they were saying, which is to extend patriality as they originally desired. This is not a rebel movement It is simply saying to the Government "You ought now to do what you ought to have done and what you said you would do in the first place."
If there are any hon. Members present—as there appear to have been—who say that this is racialist—[Interruption.] I should like to make my speech without silly interruptions which only bear the possibility of antagonising me.
With regard to the accusations that patriality is racial in concept and that to return to grandparents would be even more racialist, I should like to quote what was said in Committee on the Immigration Bill by the then Home Secretary, which was not differed from by the Opposition spokesman:
This principle—

of patriality—
has been adopted Governments—
of all political complexions—
over many years. The precedents for giving special consideration to ancestral connection appear in the 1968 Act—
when the Labour Party was in power—
and in the various independence Acts during the past 20 years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th March, 1971; c. 157.]
Apart from the 1968 Act, which applied precisely these criteria, it is a fact that all independence Acts during the last 20 years have given a special position to anyone whose father or grandfather was born in the United Kingdom. So let us have less humbug from the benches opposite to the effect that patriality has introduced any new aspect of racialism when they put into every independence Act precisely the aspect that they have been describing as racial.
If the Government do not see their way to introducing a one-clause Bill which would do no more than restore the position which they, after all, put before the House and which they could have put back in the Lords and carried through here after if they had shown the same enthusiasm in that regard as they have for many of the other contentious measures that they have pushed through the House in the last 12 months—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]—I am all for being consistent. If the Government want their programme to get through they should have all parts of their programme and not select bits and pieces of it.
In the Lords the Government made two changes in the Immigration Bill which they apparently found impossible in this instance of patriality. In one case they did what many of us would have liked, which was to remove the necessity for Commonwealth immigrants to register with the police. We discussed this matter at great length in Committee, and at that time the Government insisted that Commonwealth immigrants had to register with the police. When the Bill went to the Lords the Government took that provision out. Today the Government are patting themselves on the back for the fact that Commonwealth citizens do not have to register with the police. That is an example of Satan rebuking sin if anyone wants one.
My second suggestion for dealing with this difficult problem is that it he dealt with administratively. It could be done simply as we have in the case of Gibraltar, by our saying that these rules should not apply in certain instances where there is reciprocity and where there is no inward pressure of large numbers of people coming here. This could be done easily.
Finally, those of us who are unhappy about the Bill and who are still looking for some reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary which will enable us to support him in the Lobby are not the rebels. We are those who are asking the Government to stand by the programme which they put before the House more than a year ago.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The only fair and honest way to conduct any kind of immigration policy is the one that most moderate countries apply, namely, that their citizens shall have free right of access and everyone else shall be subject to some kind of control. We have always got ourselves into a mess because for as long as one can remember there has not bum a British law of citizenship which applied a simple test.
Therefore, everyone will agree that to get out of the present mess we must have a new law of citizenship. When that was said by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) there was general assent among hon. Members on the Government benches. However, it does not get us out of the problem, because once a definition of these citizens has been given we shall take away British citizenship as we know it—namely, citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies—from a large number of people who have no other citizenship.
This means that this action can be taken only with the consent of other countries in which those people now live and which are prepared to grant to them their citizenship. That can be done only by a Commonwealth conference, where all these problems can be ironed out. That is a long way ahead. Meanwhile, we must live with these rules.
Living with a mess, how can we best rationalise it so that we treat people

coming here who are not citizens, as that word is now defined—namely, those who have a right of abode—in a way which is equal and fair?
These rules are not simply general instructions given to immigration officers, which they can apply according to their discretion; they have the force of law for the purpose of appealing to the tribunal. Under the appeals provisions of the Immigration Act the tribunal is empowered to allow appeals, where a discretion is granted by these rules, if they think that the immigration officer has wrongly exercised that discretion. But if these rules contain no room for discretion—if they explicitly rule out any application by the applicant, or do not mention a situation in which the applicant could hope to bring himself into this country—the tribunal is not allowed to interpose its discretion. It then lies only with the reserve discretion of the Secretary of State, who has the right to allow anyone whom he wishes to come into this country, whatever the rules say. But that discretion is not subject to appeal to the tribunal.
Therefore, for most people who want to come here these rules have almost as much effect as any Act of Parliament, and they should be so drawn. They are not so drawn. They are drawn in the language of a normal official letter or bulletin that might be sent to any Member of Parliament. They are not drafted as if they were going to be dealt with as laws in the same way as an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under an Act of Parliament. It seems to me that this is the real source of concern for us from the civil liberties angle.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does not my hon. Friend think that it is also an act of monumental folly for the Government not to have consulted those organisations which have day-to-day experience of immigration case work about the formulation of these rules?

Mr. Lyon: Yes, and it is even more alarming, when I go before the adjudicators and use the appeal machinery, to find that they themselves complain that these rules are not sufficiently precise for them to administer. They say, "We make recommendations to the Home Office and these new rules come out with the same defects in them as the old rules," showing clearly that either their representations to


the Home Office were not considered or, if they were considered, they were not acted upon. If the adjudicators themselves, who are living with these rules every day, are not listened to by the Home Office, what hope has anyone of introducing a rational immigration procedure? It really requires a further look at the rules in the light of the experience not only of the immigration officers but of the organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) suggests—in particular the advisory council, but also the adjudicators and the tribunal who daily have to administer them.
Let me call to the attention of the House one provision that has already been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). The real difficulty about the difference that has now been brought in between EEC nationals and those who are Commonwealth citizens coming into this country is not their right to enter. Clearly, there must be some kind of control on the right of people to come here to work. We recognise that in relation to all those who are within our control. The EEC rules mean that there has to be free movement of labour, subject to exceptions. But for everyone else there is now a very tight control.
But once they are here and are accepted for settlement, surely they ought to be treated in the same way as any EEC national in relation to their dependants. The dependants of an EEC national include any children under the age of 21. Under these rules the dependants of any Commonwealth citizen include only children under the age of 18. The EEC national can bring his wife and children with him as of right. That is not the case with Commonwealth citizens.
Even worse, if a Commonwealth citizen wants to bring in his elderly parents, he can do so if they are over the age of 65, if he himself will provide for them as long as they are alive, and if they will be no charge on the State.
I cannot for the life of me see why we need to have a proviso relating to the age of 65. If the child will provide for the parents, whatever their age, and if they will never seek work and never

be a charge on the State, does it matter that someone from India, Tanzania or somewhere else—where retirement is so much earlier than it is in this country—wants to bring in his elderly parents and look after them in their declining years? Yet under these rules, even in the most distressing circumstances the immigration officer may not allow entry to parents under the age of 65, and, moreover, the tribunal cannot over-ride the ruling of the immigration officer.
In the case of any other near relative, on the other hand—grandparent, uncle or aunt—who is in distressing circumstances and is yet under the age of 65, an exception is provided for in the rules, and entry may be allowed.
Clearly, that cannot have been intended—I am sure that the Home Office did not intend it—but, because the rules are accepted as having the force of law, the tribunal has ruled that it has power to intervene in the case of relatives under 65 years of age who are not parents, but not in the case of those who are parents. That is an obvious nonsense, which the Home Office could not have intended, and it shows how badly drafted the rules are.
If we are successful tonight in getting the rules taken back for reconsideration, let us, for goodness' sake, go through them with a fine comb, look at each of the discrepancies, and see whether there is a way by which we can make our laws humane even if, on the question of relationships and citizenship, they will still remain a mess.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I believe that the Press campaign over the last few days has been valuable in at least one respect, for it has concentrated the public's mind on one of the fundamental issues in immigration policy; namely, whether we need to have the same kind of checks in relation to countries with close ties with this country, where family links exist, as we do in our general immigration controls.
I do not believe that we need the same kind of checks with such countries. Any nation must be free to determine which people shall have the right to come and settle, and it is, surely, nonsense


to say that it is racialist to give special treatment to those who have family connections with this country simply because they happen to have the same colour of skin as we have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear my hon. Friends agree with that, because that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), then Home Secretary, said when introducing the Bill in 1971. Had his advice been taken at that time, we should now have had the grandparent provision in relation to patriality. I regard it as a great mistake that that provision was removed, for it would have specifically benefited those about whom we seem most concerned tonight, the Australians, the New Zealanders and the Canadians.
It is instructive to look for a moment not only at who opposed and voted down that provision but why they did it. As I understand it, the reason which moved my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was that he believed that it was an open-ended commitment. In that, he was consistent with his general view on immigration policy, though it is not a view which I accept in these circumstances. More particularly, however, I think that the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), who spoke earlier, should look with care at the grounds on which the Labour Opposition opposed that provision.
In Committee, although they had used the grandparent definition in their 1968 Act, they opposed that provision on the ground that it was racial, that it made distinctions between the old and the new Commonwealth. It was not an apologetic approach. It was set out openly, in unmistakeable terms, by their Front Bench spokesman at that time, the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The hon. and learned Gentleman is a man who would be regarded as one who, by training and inclination, chooses his words carefully, and he described it as a "white settler benefit clause". Those were his words, and it was on that ground that the Labour Opposition voted against it. I hope that the public, who are now so concerned about this issue, will note what Labour's stand was.
I believe that we now face a situation which we would not have faced had we accepted provisions in the Bill. I am surprised to find we are now joining battle again on this section at this stage, and I have great sympathy with the hon. Member opposite who said that it was unreasonable to expect the Government to change their legislation at this point.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about his consultations with other Commonwealth countries but I hope he will also do a number of other things. I hope that he will take a cool look at legislation as it affects this country, and I suggest that there are three points that he should examine. First, he should decide which citizens should be given preferential treatment. The public have shown that they do not support the same kind of restrictions on New Zealanders and Australians as they do on anyone else. But everything depends upon the terms and details of the legislation. We must never forget what we are trying to do. Our chief concern, certainly in my constituency, is to restrict coloured immigration from the new Commonwealth.
Secondly, I believe that what is now dogging community relations in this country is uncertainty about who and how many have the right to settle here.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)
 rose—

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give way. We must recognise that fact. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that this should not be the case but we cannot deny the facts. We should now be concerned with the proposal put forward by hon. Members that we should be examining the whole question of citizenship, and we should examine it urgently and well.
Another vital point about immigration control is that we are concerned with control on entry and control after entry. But the plain truth is that our immigration control system depends upon controls on entry and not after entry. Illegal immigration is possible because once an illegal immigrant has entered the country the mechanics of getting a national insurance card and work within Britain are all too easy. I hope that the Home Secretary will examine that point. For those reasons I hope that he will find


some way of accommodating the Australians and the New Zealanders, but, above all, I hope that our general immi-

gration control system remains strong. I very much support what the Government are doing.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had no intention of taking part until I saw that four Conservative Members wished to speak but that no one from the Labour side was attempting to intervene in the debate.
I am against the orders because they are unfair. We cannot trust the Government. They have broken their promises many times. Under the rules people from the Common Market countries will be allowed into Britain without let or hindrance. The certainty is that they will go to settle in the industrial areas which already have an immigration problem. It is no good shutting our eyes to the fact that the entry of immigrants—coloured, Australians, Canadians or whatever—into areas where there is a shortage of housing, schools and welfare services aggravates the problems.
I am glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) is present. We have a housing problem in Newham. To try to overcome it, our progressive local authority has tried to introduce a new scheme for houses for young couples. But we find that the Government do their utmost to prevent us from getting over the problems that they know exist.
We know that the Government cannot direct immigrants to certain areas, but their appeals to immigrants not to go to the red areas will not be honoured and cannot be honoured. The immigrants will naturally gravitate to where their friends and relatives are—the red areas.
I am glad to see the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary arrive. I suggest that he has a word with some of his landed aristocracy. Many of its members have acres and acres of land that they keep for nothing else but grouse- and pheasant-shooting. It might be as well if they allocated some of it for housing for the immigrants. If the right hon. Gentleman arranged for that to be done, perhaps somewhere in Scotland, I and my right hon. and learned Friend would help him; we might get some of our immigrants to take over houses on that new Scottish housing estate.
That suggestion was a bit facetious, but, seriously, the Government could and should do something to help areas with an immigration problem. I hope that the

Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Home Secretary will reconsider the documents, and in doing so see what they can do to help such areas to overcome their problems of housing, schooling, welfare services and so on. If they do not, they will find many problems in the weeks and months ahead.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: In the few minutes available to me I shall try briefly to explain to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary why I find some difficulty in going into the same Lobby as he will be in tonight.
Rule 54 of the rules for control on entry says that no condition is imposed when an EEC national applies to come to this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) summarised the position by saying that the relative status of the people who were in the Commonwealth would be altered by these rules. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) referred to some of the difficulties that arise as a result of the rules. One is that a person coming from part of the EEC can travel anywhere within the area.
What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary failed to appreciate is that there are people who have been living in New Brunswick and some other parts of Canada for many years because they want to be loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. Most hon. Members know that I have a Canadian "hat". I have relatives who went from Connecticut to New Brunswick in 1776 and have been living there or in other parts of Canada ever since because they do not want to be republicans but want to be subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. Although they have never lived in Britain, they come here to fight when we need them, and they are surely just as entitled to be allowed in as anybody else.
What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not appreciated is that the island of St. Pierre et Miquélon, which is only a few miles off the coast of the Atlantic Provinces, is a Department of metropolitan France. So the Frenchmen on that island who have done nothing for us will be perfectly entitled to enter Britain with no conditions, whereas the people who have lived in New Brunswick


for 200 years will be subjected to the conditions set out in rule 36 and will require "a special voucher" before admission.
I have always understood that documents such as these rules are carefully examined before coming to the House. As several hon. Members have said, it is clear that the rules have not been examined with sufficient care. I have looked to see where the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is, but the small notice in the "No" Lobby is reversed so that Committee does not appear to be available to examine the rules. In that Committee when we were in opposition my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development gave us a great deal of help. I want to know who has looked at these rules and whether they have been examined with sufficient care.
Those are two reasons why I shall have difficulty in going into the right Lobby unless my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has something to tell us which we have not yet heard.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: It is clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), as from many others from both sides of the House, that the debate has touched upon profoundly-felt emotions and, further, that the rules cover many separate issues all of great importance.
One issue is how the human and civil rights of the many millions of people who come to our shores each year will be affected by the way they are received by Customs and thereafter. The majority of people who come to Britain come as visitors and not as immigrants. Therefore, I take well the point made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) that it is important for us to treat those who come as visitors in a liberal and friendly way. Our actions affect their well-being and at the same time add to or diminish the reputation of our country.
The questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) should he answered. If the Foreign Secretary cannot answer them all, I hope he will at least deal with one or two which are of great importance. I refer particularly to what has been said

about the deportation of families under rule 56. The Home Secretary seemed to misunderstand that rule. The point that was being made was not that people who cannot sustain their families when the bread-winner has already gone should be deported, but that people who can sustain their families should not be deported. That point needs looking into and answering.
The point was made from this Bench that in paragraph 69(b) of the statement of immigration rules for control on entry there is a right of appeal against a decision of an immigration official not to let someone in. It matters enormously where that appeal is heard. Does the person concerned have to return whence he came before his appeal can be considered or can he have the appeal heard while waiting in this country? While I shall say no more on this aspect I would not want the Committee to think that these important matters affecting the wellbeing and freedom of many people coming to this country as visitors or would-be immigrants should be overlooked.
We are not only discussing detailed conditions of entry and stay. The two great subjects lying just below the surface of these rules are the new and unprecedented provisions for the free movement of labour in the whole of the Western European area and the new pattern of preference in terms of access to the United Kingdom that we are to grant to the peoples of the EEC, as from 1st January, and to people from the Commonwealth and to others.
It is to these two matters that I must turn, as others have done. The Home Secretary sought to be reassuring about the free movement of labour. He did not challenge the facts of the virtually absolute right of free movement of labour which are established not in the immigration rules but in the legislation and the treaties. In some ways I am surprised to see that these documents are not on the Table, because they are so relevant. Basically, what now determines the conditions between the countries of Western Europe and Britain is not what appears in White Papers and immigration rules but what is written into the laws of Europe and particularly in the document 1968/1612 and in the directive of the same date which we have to apply.
Faced with the problem of having to explain why it is that if we suddenly open the door to the possibility of 200 million people entering Britain we have really done nothing at all the Home Secretary said "Look, they do not want to come here." When we consider what has happened to this country in the last two years we can understand why he takes that view. It is a little short-sighted. These things can change.
The reason why we do not today expect any substantial movement of people into Britain is that our rate of growth and our national prosperity are beginning to fall behind those of the continent of Europe. [Interruption.] I do not dispute that. The question between us is whether our prosperity is more likely to be secured if we take charge of our own affairs or if we collapse into Europe under the policies being pursued by the Prime Minister. That is a slightly separate matter. The free movement of labour is highly relevant to our discussions.
On the short-term prospects the position is roughly as the Home Secretary described it but he has not begun to give all the facts of the matter. For example, he should have said something about the arrangement with Turkey which begins in 1976. This is highly relevant, because I understand that at the moment there are about 500,000 Turks in the countries of Western Europe and a waiting list of almost 1 million more. Greece as well, although agreement there is in suspense at the moment, may come in. We must consider these matters fairly and soberly. The short-term likelihood is that under the free movement of labour provisions people will leave this country and go in search of work in the various parts of Western Europe.
I do not take the view that this ability to move is a totally unmixed blessing. I am not afraid to have people of other races from other lands in this country. However, it is one thing for people to choose to go to another country, or indeed to another part of their own country—that is an extension of freedom—but it is no freedom to be driven out of their own communities and across their own frontiers in search of work. We on this side of the House, in the whole em-

phasis we have given to regional policies, have always tried to counter these effects and give what we consider to be a greater freedom to people so that they are not driven by the whips of economic circumstance.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between people who, during the lifetime of the Labour Government, left my constituency to work in the prosperous regions of this country and those who leave to work in Europe? Surely it is economic pressure in both instances.

Mr. Shore: I concede that. I am most concerned that not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but in Scotland, Wales and the many other development areas of this country those pressures should be reduced. That is why we have gone in for and emphasised regional policies.
I now turn to the other great issues raised in these codes. Henceforth, as I have said, we are to give overriding priority to the citizens of the eight countries of the enlarged EEC regarding access to the United Kingdom and put into second place citizens of the Commonwealth, both old and new. There should be no doubt that this will be the effect.
First, rule 55 of the statement of immigration rules for control on entry makes clear that any EEC national who wishes to work in the United Kingdom
is to be admitted without a work permit or other prior consent.
Therefore, anyone who comes from the EEC to Britain after 1st January, 1973, to seek work is to be admitted without further dispute.
There has been some confusion about what is involved. As I understand the directive and the regulations, there is to be no control at the Customs point. That is not where the control is to operate or, indeed, is to be allowed to operate; it is specifically ruled out. A person who comes here to seek work is required only to show his passport or, in the case of some continental countries, his identity card. When he is in, having found or sought work—he does not have to come in for a specific job; he can come in to look for work—he applies for a residence permit. Again, provided that he can show


his passport or identity card and evidence that he has a job, he must then be given a residence permit, which is valid for five years in the first instance, with the proviso that after four years it no longer needs to be renewed. So it goes on. It is a total admission for both residence and work, with the minor qualifications which are written into the codes of which the Home Secretary is aware and which I doubt would stand up to scrutiny in the European Court. The same degree of discrimination applies to the families of people who are coming in to work.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman now arguing that Rule 55 is on all fours with the regulation which he has just described, which requires a residence permit showing evidence of work?

Mr. Shore: I am not certain whether it is all square with it. [Laughter.] The House should take this a bit more seriously. There are at work four documents from which bits have been quoted by various hon. Members. There is the basic provision of the Rome Treaty, the directive, the regulation and the codes. The task of finding how they fit together is one which we might have to unravel on another occasion.
I have made the point that the happy circumstances which attend any person who comes from Europe to Britain also attend his family. He has the right to bring his family, including his children under the age of 21 years and any other dependent children, presumably, even if they are over that age. That is a very important contrast between the European worker and any Commonwealth immigrant who seeks to come to this country.
It is no good the Secretary of State assuring the House as he assured his constituents during the weekend that Commonwealth citizens have only lost their place in the entry queue. To them that is an important loss. It is not enough to tell them that they should be happy because they retain the immense privilege of British citizenship, including the right to vote. The plain truth is that that privilege can be exercised only if they are in the country, and there will not he many people in that position given the close control over entry of numbers which we already have and which is clearly planned for the future. [Hon. Members: "Get on with it."] I assure

hon. Members opposite that the problem with this speech is that there is so much to say. There is also the problem of selecting what to say.
These arrangements involve a real contrast in treatment between Commonwealth immigrants and the nationals of the EEC. They are deeply offensive to most people in this country, who feel a far stronger connection with most of the Commonwealth countries than with most of the countries in the Common Market. They are perhaps even more offensive to the Commonwealth. For Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which share with us the same Head of State, operate a substantially open door for our own citizens, and are peopled predominantly with British people, the change of status to, as the Rome Treaty puts it, that of being "third countries" is a deep and unforgivable offence.
Let me dwell for a moment on that difficult matter. I do not take the view that the association between this country and the countries I have mentioned is just a matter of sentiment. Nor is it only the fact that in the last 20 years nearly 2 million of our fellow countrymen have gone to settle in those lands, although that is important. There is another reason. Looking back over our history, what was unique was not the experience of empire, which we shared with many other European countries, but the settlement and even the discovery of vast and nearly empty lands in North America and Australasia. When our people sailed to those new lands they were not like immigrants in other countries starting a new life in a foreign country. They went to what they regarded as, and what we said for so long were, extensions of Britain overseas. That is why the connection is specially close.
No other country in Europe or in the world has had this experience of its people forming separate yet linked States in other continents as we have done in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The nearest analogy I can find—it is not a good analogy—is where people have been divided by war between countries or civil war. There are two Germanies, two Koreas and two Vietnams, but nobody doubts that there is but a single people in them. Who doubts that if, as we hope, the Ostpolitik prospers in


Germany and the walls which separate West from East Germany are gradually demolished the people of East Germany will be denied access through West Germany to the whole of Western Europe? They will be treated as part of a single Germany.
Consider the case of France. Her great overseas settlement in 1958 was Algeria. It was then defined—this was the French remedy—as a debt of France, just as Guadeloupe and Martinque and others are today. Who doubts that if three French or German nations existed outside Europe those countries would have agreed to exclude them from a European community or agreed that they should be treated simply as third nations?
The same objections, although they are of a different kind but they are equally strong, are felt by the new Commonwealth. It has a great claim on us, and it, too, will resent being pushed into second place by the EEC. Reluctant as the countries of the new Commonwealth are to concede that there should be any distinction between members of the Commonwealth in relation to the United Kingdom, they still understand the argument that we are a densely-populated island and that we need to control immigration for both economic and social reasons. But what they will not understand is how the need to control in relation to Commonwealth countries should suddenly disappear in relation to Europe. They will not understand how we, who feel that we must keep a virtually closed door to them, can give an unfettered right of entry to 200 million people of Western Europe.
Like others, I believe that the Government should take back these statements. Up to a fortnight ago I had a very serious doubt whether the Government retained the power to do so—that these codes expressed, as from 1st January, 1973, the superior law of the European Community—but the Government only last week, in their Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill, legislated against the obligation which they had assumed under the Treaty of Accession. What they can do on the important matter of prices they can surely do on the still more important matter of legislation affecting immigration rights.
Then, having withdrawn the Statements, the Government should have serious—and prolonged, if need be—discussions with the Commonwealth countries. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I am surprised to notice that he is not present—should take an early plane to Brussels and begin the renegotiation of those parts of the treaty and those regulations which deal with the free movement of labour. He should point out that, while we are prepared to accept, and (indeed, welcome, liberal, sensible and reciprocal arrangements, the present regulations are not acceptable, that we will not have conditions of inferiority imposed on immigrants from the Commonwealth compared with those from the Common Market, nor will we agree to the transfer of the lawmaking power in this very sensitive area of our affairs to the institutions of the Community.
If the Government do not accept this course—in this debate we have not yet heard much indication of a more pliant spirit—we shall vote against them, and I very much hope that there will be many hon. and right hon. Members on the Government side who will join us.

11.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I have listened with the closest attention to the great majority of the speeches in this debate and, I hope, with a sincere desire to identify those aspects of immigration policy which are worrying hon. and right hon. Members and, having marked them, test their validity against the facts of the situation and see what can or should be done about them.
Immigration, as the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has said, is always a subject which engages the emotions, and at this particular time it is one of peculiar tension. I need not make the point that every word we speak on it is carefully registered abroad. As the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said, immigration is the more sensitive at this particular point in time for two reasons. First, the problem of adjustment from Empire to Commonwealth raises acute questions of the law of nationality. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) drew attention to this last week, and the hon. Lady drew attention


to it again today and recognised the restraint with which this subject and any reform of the citizenship law would have to be approached. It would raise profound difficulties and need long and deep consideration. I was grateful for the care with which she and other hon. Members approached the problem. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he would note the content of her speech, and I am content to say that the problem is well understood by the Government. It is a very big problem, indeed.
There is emotion, and this has come out time and again in the debate, because the conditions in the European Treaty on free movement of labour raises the question of the impact upon Commonwealth immigration of the Community rules. It is no use pretending that these situations do not present us with dilemmas—they do. With one such situation we are already familiar. The Labour Government were compelled, because of the changes and circumstances of the modern Commonwealth, to cut Commonwealth immigration hard. This Government have curtailed it even further. We did this because there was overwhelming proof of the need for control in relation to the employment problems of our own people in this country, and the social conditions under which we in Britain live. It would be humbug for anyone here to say, as some got very near to saying, that these controls could be lifted. They could not. They must be retained. This was well understood, I thought, in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) not long ago.
In this changing pattern from Empire to the modern Commonwealth and to partnership in the European Community—against that background—it is the desire of all in this House to strike a balance which is fair.
Particular concern has been expressed that immigrants from Australia, New Zealand and Canada may suffer undue hardship. None of us would like to see this. A number of hon. Members have made the point, and I agree, that the ties with those countries have nothing to do with discrimination in a bad or offensive sense. Not at all. These countries are largely peopled—although less now than before—by immigrants from here. Their ways are our ways. They

are loyal subjects of the same Queen, and have proved it over and over again. Everyone will share the desire, in conditions of change above all, to be fair to them.
It has been stressed that entry into the European Community, involving as it does free movement of labour—some have discovered this for the first time today although it has always been understood from the beginning that that would be so—would put Commonwealth immigrants at a disadvantage. I should like to examine that proposition, but here I would interpolate and put one matter into perspective by describing the experience of the Community in the movement of labour in the last six years or so. I was asked by a number of hon. Members to do that.
The fact is that the number of nationals of member countries moving between each other in the Community fell considerably between 1965 and 1969. Such movement as there was in that time is largely accounted for by acute shortages of labour in Germany which were filled from Italy. Conditions here are totally dissimilar.
It was rather cheeky of the right hon. Member for Stepney—even for him—to talk about rate of growth. He should have kept off that subject, if I may say so. Conditions here are totally dissimilar, and there seems no likelihood of a large influx of people to this country seeking work here. It is more likely to be the other way. [Interruption.] That is certainly true, and it was not for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about rate of growth. He might note the improvement that there has been since he was in office.
As the Home Secretary reminded the House, the number of those desiring entry from Europe is infinitesimal compared with those who want to come from the rest of the world.
Our rules about the need of immigrants to have a job will apply in relation to Community entrants. In the papers this morning an impression was given, which I should correct, that jobs have to be offered to nationals of the European Economic Community before they can be taken up by Commonwealth citizens. That is misleading. Commonwealth citizens who have already been admitted for employment form part of the national


labour market and can compete on equal terms with EEC nationals.
For Commonwealth citizens overseas there is a provision in the relevant regulations which exempts them from the terms of the regulations as citizens of countries with which we have institutional ties. While remaining subject to our work permit control, they will not be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis European nationals in applying for jobs. This will be the case as long as employment continues, as it does, with no significant flow at all from the continent to this country. After six months the immigrant from Europe cannot stay here if he has no job.
Now I come to the situation with relation to Commonwealth citizens in general. Let two facts be absolutely clear: they are not treated as aliens and there is no intention that they should ever be so treated In order to weigh up, as the right hon. Gentleman did, whether Commonwealth citizens suffer a disadvantage and whether it is an absolute or a relative disadvantage, I shall try to balance up the considerations so that the House may judge.
Commonwealth immigrants will have advantages which are not granted to immigrants coming from the European Community. They have been described to the House, so I will go through them shortly, but they are important. Commonwealth immigrants can vote, they can join the armed services, the Civil Service and the police. They do not have to complete landing and embarkation cards, they will not have to report to the police, they will continue to come to the United Kingdom as what is known as "working holiday-makers" for up to three years, students will be able to come here in exactly the same way as usual, and any Commonwealth citizen whose father or mother was born here will be able to come here freely. This affects 5 million people in the Commonwealth countries concerned—Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Foreign Secretary has given a list of ways in which Commonwealth citizens will be better placed vis-à-vis EEC nationals. Will he deny that Commonwealth citizens will not be free to seek work? Will he deny that they will not be able to take

jobs except with a named employer? Will he deny that they can be deported on seeking entry into this country if their papers are not correct, whereas an EEC national cannot be so refused entry without a right of appeal in the United Kingdom?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will give the balance of these factors in a moment—

Mr. Russell Kerr: Deny it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, I do not deny some of the things that the hon. Lady says.
I want to deal with the three countries. So many confusing and misleading things have been said and written that we must be clear about the make-up of the immigration figures for Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I will take 1971, on which the 1972 figures may well improve. There were 414,921 admissions into Britain of Commonwealth citizens from these three countries, and of that total 411,877 were short-term visitors, including working holiday-makers. A total of 3,044 were admitted for permanent residence.
I repeat emphatically what I have said outside this place: there is nothing arising from our membership of the Community which will prevent us from continuing our present Commonwealth immigration policies.
I was interested to see a comment from an Australian who has sometimes criticised us fairly harshly, Mr. John Gorton:
I do not myself believe that the administrative rules proposed will impose any additional disadvantages on the citizens of Australia or New Zealand or Canada—certainly not on the citizens of Australia. I see no new disadvantages being imposed on Australians. I see them retaining the existing advantages which they have, and I believe that those existing advantages are quite considerable.
There is an independent Australian point of view. I repeat it because, while it is absolutely right that we should be alert and that if we have an experience which proves that there is unfair treatment it should be exposed and remedied, it is a shame if the people of those loyal and friendly countries are led to believe that the people of Britain or the Government of Britain have lost interest in them and do not care. That is a shame, and it is not true; we care deeply, all of us.
If these figures of entry into Britain and the pattern of entry are correct—I am trying to analyse the problem—the grievances must arise, if there are grievances, in the category of those who wish to settle permanently in this country. This is a comparatively small number of people that I have just described, but they are important, people who feel that they are handicapped in regard to the granting of an entry permit, which may be refused in Australia, Canada or wherever it may be, or that, having arrived in this country one way or another, they are subjected to inconsiderate treatment at airports or ports, or perhaps have to go home to get a permit or something of that kind.

Sir Elwyn Janes: Is that all? All the way to Australia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not in the least object to the interjection of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), because I understand that this may be a very heavy handicap to apply to Australians. But these are the two categories about which there may be genuine anxieties: those who may be refused an entry permit in a Commonwealth country a long way away and may not understand the reason why it has been refused, and those who are subjected to inconsiderate treatment at airports and ports of this country.
Let me put the first of these problems into perspective. Up to now the proportion of those who have not been admitted for permanent residence is 1 in 200 of the total of those who wish to come here for all purposes. We shall readily examine this aspect of the matter in the Ministerial discussions which are to be held. These Ministerial discussions will be held at the level of senior Ministers, and senior Ministers will be involved in them. Various matters will be raised in these discussions, properly so. I took note, for example, of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said when he talked about the possibilities of limited reciprocity. This should certainly be discussed at the ministerial discussions. There could well be possibilities in following this line of country.
I may be wrong, but, having examined the first of these categories of people

who want permanent settlement, I do not think that it will be found on further examination to be a serious problem. However, we ought to look at this problem and the question of reciprocity when the ministerial talks take place. They cannot take place until the elections in New Zealand and Australia are over, but I suspect—

Mr. Bidwell: In the kind of discussions which the right hon. Gentleman envisages, does it mean that Indian people will be at a disadvantage compared with people of the old Commonwealth?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman should not draw that conclusion. There are certain aspects of reciprocity which it is possible and right to consider. This should be done, and at the highest level.
What has been corroborated by a number of speeches is that much of the feeling that is generated comes from the difficulties and frustrations experienced by a good many Commonwealth citizens at airports and ports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) raised that question.
My right hon. Friend and I have noted all the complaints that have been made today and the suggestions for meeting them. They come under the heading of how should we best organise reception at our airports and ports so as to lead to the minimum of delay consistent with security and make the Commonwealth citizen feel that he is welcome in this country.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I normally give way often when I am winding up a debate, but I sat through the whole of the debate without once interrupting and I must now get on.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Hon Members: Sit down!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. The hon. Member must sit down.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It must be the aim to try to make all Commonwealth citizens feel that they are welcomed as such.
There is a dilemma. When the question of entrance at the airports and the number of gates to be used was raised earlier it seemed that this question was almost frivolous. People care a great deal about it. My right hon. Friend will examine every aspect of how entry into the ports and airports can be made easier so that there is the minimum of delay and people do not think that they are neglected, ignored and left alone.
Some say that they have a very nasty time at the airports. Six million people go through London Airport each year. I am not sure how any of us would stand up to the test of continuing patience at the reception end. I think that there is a double obligation to employ people who have perception and possess outstandingly the qualities of patience, sympathy and understanding of people who travel by air to this country. We will, therefore, try very hard to improve upon our present policies and will consult the Commonwealth countries which feel that particular difficulties apply to them.
I hope that what I have said will give reassurance not least in Australia. New Zealand and Canada that their immigration will continue and that we seek by all means to receive them with consideration and the friendship which is their due.
I said at the beginning that I and my right hon. Friend would give the most careful consideration to the points that have been raised, and that we will do.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin raised what she thought was an anomaly between paragraphs 4 and 49 of the rules for control on entry. The short answer is that paragraph 4 deals with the position of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and Commonwealth citizens who are patrial and paragraph 49 deals with people who come into neither of these two categories. Therefore, there is no conflict. I realise that this is a very complicated matter. If the hon. Lady is not satisfied, my right hon. Friend will write to her.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No.

Mr. Lyon: May I—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) raised a number of points. As to the definition of a dependant, my right hon. Friend said that it seemed to have been changed by administrative methods from the age of 16 to 18. That has happened since 1962. I will look further into the matter, but these are the facts.
My right hon. Friend was right about Pakistan. We have said time and again that Pakistanis who were in this country before independence will find themselves no worse off through Pakistan having left the Commonwealth. We stick to that pledge, but legislation will have to be introduced because Pakistan is now a foreign country.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell rose—

Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Powell: Is my right hon. Friend confirming that there will be a difference of treatment between Pakistanis in this country according to whether they entered before or after the date of independence?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I confirm that. There may have to be a provisional period, but they will have to change their status because they are now foreigners. This is a fact of life.

Mr. Lyon: Mr. Lyon rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have a number of questions to answer.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) asked whether, if an immigration officer refused a person entry under paragraph 69(b) of the rules for control on entry. an appeal could be heard before the person was sent back. My right hon. Friend said that he thought the answer was "yes". Perhaps I can elaborate slightly. He can remain in this country to bring an appeal if he has an entry clearance or work permit. If he does not hold these documents, an appeal can be allowed only after he has left.
There are various other questions which I should like to answer, but I do not think I have time. I or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will write to hon. Members in answer to their questions.
To sum up, I think there are two categories where action can properly be taken in relation to immigrants coming into this country. The first is administrative—

Mr. Callaghan: The Foreign Secretary will realise that he has reassured nobody by that last answer. Is he not going to tell us that he will look again at the ridiculous notion that somebody has to be sent back to Australia if he does not have a work permit in order that he can appeal and return here?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, we will certainly look again at that. This is not exactly the point with which I was dealing, but it is one of the situations that we shall look into.

Mr. Lyon: Mr. Lyon rose—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think there are two categories where action can be taken. The first is administrative. My right hon. Friend will examine all the suggestions which have been made in this debate. The second relates to those subjects of substance which can properly be raised with the Commonwealth Governments concerned, and reciprocity is undoubtedly one.
With these possibilities in prospect, I hope that hon. Members, having had a full debate, and having put forward their arguments, will be sufficiently convinced that action can be taken in respect of the immigrants so that they will reject the Motion. I myself, as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, have given this matter the closest consideration, as I am bound to do, and I am satisfied that the action that we can take in an administrative way and in consultation with our Commonwealth colleagues is such that we can make changes which will help the immigrant. That pledge I can give.

I trust that the House will reject the Motion.

Mr. Lyon: Mr. Lyon rose—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May I ask my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] We are very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for saying that discussions are to be undertaken with the Commonwealth Governments concerned. But will not my right hon. Friend now withdraw these rules for consideration in the light of those discussions?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My answer to my hon. Friend must be "No, Sir". I have just made it plain that I think action can be taken to alleviate the situation as a result of ministerial discussion.

Mr. Lyon: These rules are part of the law of England if we pass them tonight—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member trying to make another speech? He has already spoken.

Mr. Lyon: With the leave of the House—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Lyon: This will be part of the law of the land—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order at this stage, having regard to the debate which we have had, to invite—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 240.

Division No. 19.1
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Albu, Austen
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allen, Scholefield
Booth, Albert
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Concannon, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Barnes, Michael
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cronin, John


Baxter, William
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Benn, Rt Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cent, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, Dr J. A. (Whitehaven)






Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, William (Rugby)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Judd, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Kelley, Richard
Richard, Ivor


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dormand, J. D.
Kilfedder, James
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur
Rose, Paul B.


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Ellis, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Sandelson, Neville


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Evans, Fred
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sillars, James


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Foot, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Gaipern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steel, David


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marks, Kenneth
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Golding, John
Marquand, David
Strang, Gavin


Gourlay, Harry
Marsden, F.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marten, Neil
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Meacher, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Hamling, William
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Milne, Edward
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Varley, Eric G.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George


Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David


Hooson, Emiyn
Murray, Ronald King
Weitzman, David


Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon
Wellbeloved, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Bert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter



Janner, Greville

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Palmer, Arthur



Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pardoe, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jennings. J. C. (Burton)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)






NOES



Adley, Robert
Astor, John
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)




Benyon, W.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Blaker, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Parkinson, Cecil


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Bray, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Pounder, Rafton


Brewis, John
Havers, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hayhoe, Barney
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hicks, Robert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hiley, Joseph
Redmond, Robert


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, Richard
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Channon, Paul
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Ridsdale, Julian


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cordle, John
Jessel, Toby
Scott, Nicholas


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Shaw,Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Critchley, Julian
Keliett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Simeons, Charles


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J. R.
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Kirk, Peter
Spence, John


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Sproat, lain


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knox, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Dixon, Piers
Lambton, Lord
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Douglas-Home, Rt Hn. Sir Alec
Lamont, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Merchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geolfrey(Sut'nC'field)
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Temple, John M.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Elliott, R.W.(N'C'tle-upon-Tyne,N)
Loweridgt, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Emery, Peter
Luce, R. N.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McCrindle, R. A.
Tilney, John


Fidler, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)
Trew, Peter


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maddan, Martin
Waddington, David


Fortescue, Tim
Madel, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Foster, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walters, Dennis


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Warren, Kenneth


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Money, Ernie
Wiggin, Jerry


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wilkinson, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gorst, John
Mudd, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Gray, Hamish
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Green, Alan
Normanton, Tom
Younger, Hn. George


Grieve, Percy
Nott, John



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Osborn, John
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Gurden, Harold
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control on Entry (H.C., 1971–72, No. 509), a copy of which was laid before this House

on 23rd October 1972, in the last Session of Parliament, be disapproved.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I now ask the Prime Minister, since this is a matter of major constitutional importance


—[Laughter.]—if he is not going to tender his resignation—[Laughter.]—to inform the House what the Government intend to do in the circumstances of this vote.

Hon. Members: Resign, resign!

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The House has rejected two statements made in accordance with Acts passed by the House. Statements to replace them will be laid in due course.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

11.48 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): I beg to move,
That the European Communities (Designation) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to discuss also the three other Motions on the Order Paper:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Communities (European Schools) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1582), dated 23rd October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Communities (Enforcement of Community Judgments) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1590), dated 23rd October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Communities (Loan Stock) (Stamp Duties) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972. No. 1589), dated 23rd October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be annulled.
I ask hon. Members to withdraw as quickly as possible, because delay will reduce the time available for discussion of the order.

Mr. Davies: The order is laid for affirmative resolution by the House, largely because the issues involved in it, the first of such orders, are of interest to the House and merit consideration by it. The order designates Ministers and Departments which are to have the power to make regulations for specified matters arising in connection with obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by the European treaties.
The need for subordinate legislation arises in two ways. First, the institutions of the Community—the Commission and, more normally, the Council—issue so-called directives which lay down objectives to be achieved by member States but do not definitely state by what means of legislation they will be achieved. This is left to the discretion of member States, and they act in accordance with their own framework of law.
The second manner in which these matters come up is that the treaties and legislative instruments issued by the Community institutions—in particular the so-called regulations—lay down rules which themselves are to operate as law in the member states. But these rules frequently need supplementation to make them wholly effective, or require incidental or consequential provisions in the national law for their satisfactory operation.
A simple illustration of the first type is a Community directive issued in 1969 on the classification of crystal glass. Subordinate legislation will be needed to introduce appropriate classification for crystal glass in this country. An illustration of the second type might be found in the 1972 regulation on the registration of hatcheries and other poultry establishments. To operate this regulation, subordinate legislation is needed to appoint Agricultural Departments as the official supervisory agencies for the enforcement of the regulation and to provide for the registration of hatcheries and breeding establishments above a certain minimum size. Although the regulation by itself creates law in this country, it could not, standing alone, be fully operative.
The House will remember that Section 2 of the European Communities Act enables provision to be made for the implementation of such Community obligations, or for dealing with matters arising out of or in relation to them, either by Her Majesty acting by means of Orders in Council or by Ministers or Departments designated in relation to any matter or for any purpose by an Order in Council, which will then enable designated Ministers or Departments to make the appropriate regulations.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate in relation to which schedule which


Secretary of State has the responsibility for dealing with matters relating to hatcheries? I do not readily identify in the schedule any of the matters in relation to which Ministers or Departments are designated which covers the no doubt important area of hatcheries.

Mr. Davies: I will help the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment because I shall be coming to that. I was raising this as an illustration of the form of regulation which would require subordinate legislation to complete the effectiveness of the regulation.
As a result of Section 2 (4) of the Act the legislative powers which can be exercised by Order in Council or conferred on designated Ministers under Section 2 (2) cover anything that can be done by statute, subject only to certain exceptions laid down in Schedule 2. But the House will recall from the proceedings on the Act that Ministers repeatedly emphasised that these powers of delegated legislation would normally be used only for those matters of a supplementary or procedural character and not, as a general practice, for matters which were of more importance and, therefore, would normally call for primary legislation.
The delegation of legislative powers is in two sections: first, in Section 2 by Her Majesty operating by Order in Council, and then, where appropriate, by the Order in Council designating Ministers to exercise these powers. This is an unusual provision. It arises from the wide and unpredictable range of matters in which subordinate legislation may be required and could not, therefore, be specified once and for all in the Act. The range of such subjects already covered by Community law, or potentially to be covered, extends over the whole field of Community activities, and, accordingly, so must the subordinate legislation which will operate under Section 2. Any attempt to set out in detail in the Act the powers to be exercised by individual Ministers would have required an exceedingly lengthy provision within the Act and would have wanted in flexibility. Indeed, as to future Community law, it would have proved wholly impracticable to do so. Equally, it would not be satisfactory that the powers of Ministers designated under the Act should be so extensive as to give them a range of action, within the subordinate legislation, of a kind which

the House might feel it could not adequately surpervise.
For this reason, the two-stage delegation which has been mentioned during the debates on the Act has been devised. It serves a two-fold purpose in providing the flexibility needed to deal with the wide range of existing and future Community law and in affording hon. Members an opportunity to assess the range of powers which it is proposed to confer on Ministers and the extent to which those powers are delimited in each case. The House is given a double opportunity to scrutinise the exercise of these delegated powers: first, in this order as to the extent of those powers; and, subsequently, when the designated Ministers exercise the powers so conferred.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do I gather from my right hon. Friend that the only powers conferred by the order to be exercised by the designated Ministers are those which will be subject to this House by way of regulation or order? Or will they automatically include effective legislation? In that case, it would appear that the second part of what he said would not apply?

Mr. Davies: Those parts of the regulations framed within the Community which operate as law within the national law and which, therefore, do not need supplementation are not covered within the order, because they are automatically transformed into the national framework of law under the provisions of the European Communities Act. The purpose is to try to ensure that the House has this dual scrutiny over matters which are related within the orders concerned and the subordinate legislation which is involved. Hon. Members were assured during the debates on the Act that there would be this double safeguard. I simply wish to draw attention to the fact that it has been provided.
Apart from a few matters which are more appropriately dealt with by Orders in Council, the order is intended to cover all the subordinate legislation which we think is necessary for the purposes of existing Community obligations or for those which we have reason to believe are highly probable to fall on us during the next 12 months. Inevitably, we cannot be sure about all the duties which may fall on member States as a result


of Community legislation during that period, but we have taken account of all those matters which are now in draft or which we know to be under serious consideration and in an advanced stage of preparation.
Of course, in saying this I cannot rule out the possibility that, on the one hand, it might prove necessary to call for further designation orders during the ensuing year or, on the other hand, that certain matters for which provision is made within the schedule will not be used. However, there is no harm in that, because it would imply that there was no Community obligation which required the specific matter to be undertaken. Obviously, if there is no obligation there is no call on the delegated powers.
I have already mentioned that the powers of subordinate legislation in Section 2(2) are intended only for minor and miscellaneous matters. It will be apparent that most of the matters referred to in the schedule are described with a degree of detail which leaves little doubt that only that type of provision normally found in statutory instruments as opposed to primary legislation is intended to be covered. I will illutrate that by referring to the item in the schedule on vehicle type approval. The type of provisions there are not dissimilar to the kind that one would expect to deal with in regulations made under the Road Traffic Act, 1972, the kind of provisions which once the main principles have been laid down in the appropriate legislation can be left to subordinate legislation. That fact is to be observed in the form in which the order is drawn.
The principles which have been laid down in the treaties or the Community instruments themselves in this context create the obligation in respect of which the subsidiary legislation is authorised. The degree of detail necessarily varies from subject to subject—that will be seen in the schedule—depending on the practicability and the need for broader definition. It is not always practicable or expedient to specify the subject matter of the delegated powers with a high degree of detail. Where there is a clearly ascertainable area of Community policy and it is already apparent that implementing or supplementing provisions will

frequently be needed there is no point in detailed selection of particular matters within that policy. In such a case detail would be conducive neither to the interests of Parliament nor to good administration. That is particularly true regarding the common agricultural policy of the Community. That policy is based on the agricultural provisions of the EEC Treaty, and it is well known that the term "common agricultural policy" is used without further definition in Section 6 of the Act. It operates by regulations taking direct effect and leaving little discretion as to the method of supplementation to the member States. But the range of products and the activities embraced by the policy is very great and it will require a lot of ancillary provisions for its satisfactory operation in this country. Already these will range, for instance, from the provisions for marketing eggs and registering hatcheries, to which the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) referred, to financial aid for farmers giving up their land. With so wide and varied a range of matters to be covered, it is important to get flexibility and it calls for a broad specification. In doing so, the schedule will, I hope, avoid the need for further designations in the agricultural field for some time to come.
As I mentioned earlier, we have endeavoured to make provision for anything likely to be needed in the course of this Session. But I assure the House that there will not be a flood of subordinate legislation. On present estimates it seems that under the powers conferred by the order approximately 35 instruments will be made. Three other Orders in Council under Section 2 of the Act were laid before the House on 31st October, 1972. They relate to the effect of Community decisions and judgments in the United Kingdom, immunities of the European schools and the tax treatment of loan stock issued by some European institutions.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I appreciate that the use of the description "Secretary of State" is not uncommon in instruments of this kind, but will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to identify which Secretary of State and which Department will be seized of these responsibilities? I appreciate that the term


of art "Secretary of State" is a convenient generic term for certain purposes, but where these are matters which may be of importance in relation to questions and issues of responsibility it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could identify which "Secretary of State" he has in mind. The extraordinary generality of the order on the one hand and the remarkable detailed particularity on the other is something without precedent.

Mr. Davies: I will come to that matter. However, I do not know whether what I have to say will greatly rejoice the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall certainly come to that matter, as I have to the interesting point which he raised about hatcheries, by pointing out that the very wide embrace of the common agricultural policy naturally comprehends the issue to which he referred.
There will be the three other Orders in Council, but no further Orders in Council under this section are contemplated at present. A certain number of statutory instruments will be made under specific powers contained elsewhere in the Act or under existing powers of subordinate legislation which can be exercised in connection with various treaty obligations which we are or shall be assuming. On present information, we do not expect those to exceed 100 in the course of this or next year. This is hardly a deluge, and the scale of operation thereafter will be much the same.
The House will he interested in what the Brooke Committee on Delegated Legislation said on this matter, which it studied with particular care. It bore out what I have said, that we are not going through an easy period which will he succeeded by a flood of instruments. That is not the conclusion at which one arrives. It is unlikely that there will be more than a relatively small addition to the number of instruments, approaching about 1,000 a year, which are already scrutinised by the Statutory Instruments Committee.
I come to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. I realise that he would have liked to see a greater degree of definition, but, in some ways, the principal purpose of the order is to make precise in Parliament's mind the specific areas within which the order can be exer-

cised. As to the denomination of the appropriate Ministers who will have the delegated authority to act within the powers, it is traditional to designate them as "the Secretary of State". The term "Secretary of State" has some generic and some strictly practical quality in its use. The convention is that a Secretary of State can be held to be able to exercise the duties of any other so designated, and for this purpose it is highly convenient—I do not conceal it—in handling an order of this kind that there should be such a tradition. With this kind of order it perhaps goes beyond the point of mere convenience and becomes almost essential.
There is plainly the question, of which we are all aware, of the need for some interchangeability in the execution of duties, but beyond that a number of the activities to which the schedule refers would have required the nomination of several Ministers in order to ensure their completion. The nomination of several Ministers, particularly if they had been shown as alternative, would have facilitated the identification of the Minister concerned no more than using the generic phrase "Secretary of State". Therefore, the House will I think understand why it has been found appropriate in the schedule to use this expression.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I understand my right hon. Friend's argument from the point of view of hon. Members or lawyers, but lay members of the public who will be concerned in their businesses about impending regulations may well want to know of what Government Department, as opposed to Minister, to make inquiries. Will guidance be given? Anyone buying this statutory instrument will not get value for money.

Mr. Davies: I should like to feel that he will get value for money, if not complete clarification of these problems at first reading. Normally, such a person will address himself reasonably to his sponsoring Ministry for advice, and from that Ministry he will get the indications which he needs.
The other point which is of some substance and which, because this is the first order, is worth drawing attention to is that under Section 2(2) of the Act an option was offered to the exercise of


the powers granted under the designation orders, with these being dealt with through the affirmative or negative procedure. The reason for that was simply and solely the wide range of the matters concerned and the virtual impossibility of spelling out criteria which could clearly indicate which of these two could apply to appropriate cases. I think, therefore, that the Ministers exercising these powers will have regard to the undertakings given during the course of the debates on the measure itself, but I felt it right for this order to be subject to the affirmative procedure simply because it was the first of its kind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why should it be virtually impossible to spell out the criteria? It has been done in similar circumstances.

Mr. Davies: I understand that, but if one regards the enormous range of Community activities and the very wide range of instruments that may arise, it is possible that to spell out such criteria with any accuracy would be impossible.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that the sole reason for his choosing to adopt the affirmative procedure is that this is the first order?

Mr. Davies: It was a part of the reason, although I think that the order—not only because it is the first of its kind but because it designates the Ministers who will exercise the subordinate legislation over a very wide field—is of substantial importance to the House. But I would not say that it had to be regarded as a precedent that all such designatory orders would always be handled through the affirmative procedure. It might be that in future that procedure would not be necessary.
I very much commend the order to the House, and ask the House's approval of the proposals made. I ask it equally to take note of the fact that the undertakings given in debate on the subject have been faithfully observed.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the common agricultural policy: I am very sorry that the egg should have become rather addled in the course of events.

Mr. Davies: I would direct the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the wide-ranging provisions relating to the Ministers who may operate the orders in relation to the common agricultural policy.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: First giving the customary courteous welcome to the right hon. Gentleman performing in his new rôle as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I must say that I am a little surprised that the Government should have decided to continue with the day's business. It is less than half an hour since the major plank of the commitment to the European Communities, in the form of the two sets of rules relating to the free movement of labour, was sawn away and a crushing defeat inflicted upon the Government—not a marginal or tiny defeat but a defeat due to a massive and deliberate withdrawal of support by their own supporters. That being so on a major matter, I am surprised that the Minister should have thought fit to continue to present these orders of less importance.
In order to allay the right hon. Gentleman's undoubted anxieties, and to set at rest the minds of his Front Bench colleagues—and that Front Bench is well manned for the occasion—and in order that they may all give their full attention to the present subject, I may say that it is not my intention, provided that we are not unduly disturbed by any replies and interjections, to inflict any further humiliation and defeat upon them by dividing the House.
Having said that, I will return to the subject matter. We are all hoping tonight that we can enjoy a little extra indulgence from the Chair, because we are dealing with the first orders to be issued under the machinery of the European Communities Act and because one or two points need to be established between us. I am following now what the right hon. Gentleman said, before I turn to certain questions I should like to put to him.
These will relate not only to the designation order which was formally presented to us, but, I gather—with the permission of the House—to three Prayers which I am not formally to move but which can also be mentioned, as it is convenient for us to do so.
The first thing I want to get clear—and the Minister has already helped here—is on what we can expect in the weeks and months ahead. My understanding is the same as his, and the Minister's access to information is better than mine. I am glad to have it confirmed that we are not to be faced with a great mass of secondary and subsidiary orders under the European Communities Act.
That does not come as a surprise to me because one of the reasons for it, regretfully, is the wretched business of the European Communities Act, under which major legislation is transferred altogether from the House of Commons. That is a point with which, unhappily, we are all familiar. Euro-laws are not notified to this House. Nor are we going to be troubled by a great flow of orders coming through in the form of directives—speaking in the language of Community law—and thus enabling our elected Parliament, and Parliaments elsewhere in the Community, to add their own small gloss to what has already been basically agreed in Brussels.
My first question relates to what the right hon. Gentleman volunteered—but would press him harder on this—about the way in which his mind will work in deciding which of the procedures available to him he intends to use in moving future orders. We know that either he can do it by affirmative procedure or we can take an opportunity of praying against a statutory instrument. Tonight we have one affirmative order and three prayers, in my name. The Minister said that to some extent we were having this as an affirmative resolution because it is the first one, but in saying that he was doing himself less than justice. There must be some more elaborate reason.
I understand that it is difficult to give any hard and fast criteria, and that some common sense must be used, but I urge the Minister to give this matter rather more thought, if not on this occasion then on another. This involves an important matter. We are here having the first use of the Government's discretion—and the Government's use of discretion in all matters relating to the European Communities Act is of first-rate importance. It will be within the Government's discretion, whether to try to get other matters through by affirmative resolution

or to seek a separate piece of legislation. The more information we can have about the Government's criteria the better.
It would also help to know whether a particular statutory instrument supplements a Community regulation under Section 2(1) or translates a directive into English law under Section 2(2). In the former case it is essential to have that basic legislation on the Table. We have just had a debate which suffered, among other defects, from the fact that the main laws affecting this country in a matter which the House was sensible enough to reject were not even on the Table.
The third point, which is a real gem, relate to the statutory instrument on the European School, which sounds a useful institution and will no doubt help to educate the children of those of our civil servants and others who are driven from this land to serve in Brussels in the years ahead. I discovered the school—again, one wants to know what one is talking about—in Vol. 5 of European Communities Treaties and Related Instruments, a batch of volumes presented to us in February of this year.
I am surprised to find it here at all in the form of a statutory instrument. I can see a case for doing that, but it is a pre-accession treaty rather than Community law, and pre-accession treaties are validated under Section 1 of the Act. Why has this not been presented to us as a separate subordinate treaty under Clause 1?
I turn now to my fourth and, perhaps, last question. I was a little disheartened to find so little information in the designation order. The jobs are described in the schedule but, in overseeing them, the Ministers who are to exercise that limited degree of responsibility that the Cornmunity obligations will allow to a Minister are not defined. It is simply left with the blanket term "Secretary of State". I understand the precedent for this, but it makes it difficult for us. Apart from the "Secretary of State", which obviously covers many of his colleagues and many functions, the only Minister specified is the Minister of Agriculture. I am a little surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not feature in this. Does he count as a Secretary of State for these purposes? If not, surely orders are in train, or may reasonably be expected soon to be so, which will require the


authority of the Chancellor, or come under his banner. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that illustrious and powerful colleague of his is omitted from the list of Ministers and Departments.
Beyond my main questions, I say only two things. Obviously it would be convenient for the House and the country, which, after all, is affected by Euro-law no less than it is by English law, if the Minister would give as much information as possible about the matter involved in these statutory instruments. I had not previously heard of the European School. Perhaps I should have done. We now know a little about it, but I do not think that many people outside this Chamber know of it. They should have some explanation.
Means must be found of explaining these things to our people. Clearly we cannot always rely on the Opposition to put down a prayer. Perhaps we can, but we certainly cannot rely on Opposition prayers always being debated, which is another matter. Therefore, the Government have a special obligation to ensure that at least some explanation and opportunity for debate is provided when these orders are brought forward.
Just as the Minister did not wish to create any precedents—as he put it—by selecting a particular order for affirmative resolution and others for the negative procedure, I, too, wish to state that this is not a precedent for the Opposition tonight. The Government would be very unwise to assume that in the future we would allow a general debate to cover a number of orders rather than have them taken separately; nor would they be sensible to assume that we shall not press to a vote many matters on which we are not satisfied.

12.29 a.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question about Order No. 1582, dealing with schools. I notice that the order says,
This Order may be cited as the European Communities (European Schools) Order 1972".
The note below merely refers to the school in Luxembourg, but others have been set up previously. Will they come under the order? I refer in particular to the International Lycée, just outside Paris,

which was previously a Ministry of Defence school. I have visited this school. When France left NATO, the main school was transferred to Brussels, but this has remained as the International Lycée.
The Italians, the French and the Germans undertook to pay a considerable sum so that primary and secondary children should have free education. Formerly the Ministry of Defence contributed £10,000, but regrettably the Government withdrew this grant. Some of my hon. Friends and I went to the Department of Education and Science to see if that Department would take over where the Ministry of Defence left off, because this is an important and excellent school. The majority of pupils are French. The next largest group of pupils is English.
An excellent committee of voluntary workers goes through the process of collecting fees and handing them to the headmaster for him to pay staff salaries. The staff do not know for how long the committee will be able to pay them or whether they will get any pensions, and they are never certain whether their pensions will be paid in full, although to date the arrangement has worked satisfactorily.
Will the term "European School" cover schools such as this? If it will, it will give great satisfaction to the committee which has carried on this good work. As I shall be meeting some of the members of the committee of the school on 4th December, I should be grateful if I could be told whether this school will come under the umbrella of the order.
Mr. Christopher Soames, who recently relinquished the post of British Ambassador to France, took a special interest in this school and can provide further information about it.
What is the French translation of "European School"? I presume that "school" is "lycée". Can we have the word "international", or will it be "European lycées" in future?

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the umbrella nature of this designation order. It appears that it is to be used to deal with minor matters only, but it is an order made in connection with Section 2 of the


European Communities Act, which deals not only with minor matters but with major and fundamental matters of Community legislation which are bound to have considerable effect in Britain in the future.
Is there scope under the order for directives of the European Commission or of the Council of Ministers to be implemented merely by virtue of the order, and regulations made thereunder—directives to enable national Governments to implement Community legislation in broad principle in their own way.
Could the order be used to make consequential changes in United Kingdom legislation, consequential upon self-enacting regulations either of the European Commission or of the Council of Ministers, or on those directives whereby we might have to pass a law to include them and also have to pass subordinate legislation to remove contradictions in existing United Kingdom legislation?
I should not have referred to the question of the European School if there had not been a protocol of 1962 referred to in the order. The original statute of the European School is dated 1957. As the House will know, the original statute merely set up a school in Luxembourg, and if that were the only object of the exercise of the order I would not be speaking on this subject. But the Protocol allows European schools to be set up on the precise—and note the word "precise"—model of the European School in Luxembourg, and it is the possibility that such a European School might be set up in the United Kingdom in future under this order that rather concerns me from an educational point of view and not from one's point of view of the Common Market as such.
If one refers to the actual wording of the statute setting up the European School, one sees that the school is modelled very much on the lines of the West European and particularly the French educational system. Very little power is given to the headmaster. There is a good deal of central control and direction. I do not want to bore the House by reading out the articles to which I, as an educationist, have an objection, but I refer the House to Articles 5, 11, 17 and 22 of the Statute of 1957.
In fact, Article 22 makes it brutally clear that the headmaster is nothing more than a sort of chief clerk in his own school, under a board of governors, an administrative board, and a number of other authorities. This goes completely counter to the English, if not the British, educational tradition and, while it is not important if this sort of educational idea—which is so contrary to our own traditions—is to apply merely in Luxembourg or elsewhere in Western Europe—where no doubt it conforms with tradition—the thought that under this order we should have set up in Britain a European School run on lines which completely contradict those of our traditional educational systems, both State and private, is something of which we ought to take note.
My other point is that in Article 5 there is a reference to the European baccalaureat and the fact that member States shall give graduates or school leavers from any European school rights of admission to their own universities. Our system of admission to universities is rather different from that which exists in the rest of Western Europe and, indeed, North America. We tend to allow our universities and institutions of higher education to select from among suitably qualified applicants those whom they wish to take, whereas generally throughout Western Europe and North America anyone who has the appropriate qualification has an absolute legal right to go to a university institution of some sort.
I wonder whether we are sowing the seeds of some potential conflict in future if we have a European School in this country, or, indeed, if school leavers graduating from the European School in Luxembourg, with their parents being moved to Britain for Common Market purposes, wish to go to university. This raises the thorny problem of entrance qualifications and the question whether universities or institutions of higher education would have their existing right to refuse admission even if candidates are suitably qualified.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The last three interventions have stressed the importance of the schools order and have shown that this matter, which is very technical in its educational implications, needs to be debated in some way


or other so that hon. Members may consider its implications. Therefore, it is a pioneer order in posing the question how best we can arrange to discuss matters which, although perhaps connected with the order, are clearly unsuited to the House for debate in the absence of a Minister from the Department of Education and Science. I do not say that it is necessarily desirable to do it in this Chamber, but I am certain that there must be a method for discussing the matter somewhere in the Palace of Westminster—perhaps in a Committee. Several important points need following through.
The strict purpose of the order is to give the existing European schools legal status under the law of this country and to make them public institutions recognised by our law. But, Britain having adhered to the statute, various obligations, powers and responsibilities flowing therefrom are laid upon Her Majesty's Government. Not only shall we, as a contracting party, be liable to make our contribution to the finances of these schools but we shall, I think, have representatives on the councils, to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) referred, and, no doubt, some English children will become pupils of these schools.
I have not had the opportunity to visit any of them yet, but I gather that the schools are peculiar in the sense that the tuition is conducted in the languages of all the contracting parties. I understand that it is part of the system that the children of one nationality receive part of their education in the language of other nationalities, and, to that extent, it is hoped that the pupils will attain a degree of bilingualism, if not trilingualism. This is somewhat specialist, and it seems to me, therefore—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has pointed this out—that these schools cannot of them. selves, simply on the basis of numbers alone, supply the necessary amount of education for British children who are likely to have their parents employed in the Community.
One issue which the order must raise in our minds, therefore, is the adequacy of the education for British children which will be provided at Brussels, in Luxembourg, or even at Strasbourg.
That question goes beyond the scope of the order but it is of immense importance, because, so far as I am aware, several existing European schools may not yet come within its scope. Perhaps they could come within it, but the salient fact is that other member countries of the Community are making substantial contributions to these schools to ensure that their language, their culture, and their children's education are adequately supported.
We therefore have to face the question whether Her Majesty's Government should consider the need, if it be a need—this is something we must discover—to support our educational principles and the British English speaking and teaching schools already established within the Community to the same degree as other member countries do. If we do not do that we shall be losing the British impetus which we hope to bring to the growth of the Community.
Reverting to the existing European schools, I should welcome an opportunity to have more information about the exact part that Britain is taking. In correspondence with the Department of Education and Science I have learned that since Britain adhered formally to the statute, and since 1st September, we have been taking a full part in the administration of these schools. An initial cadre of British teachers has been seconded to Luxembourg and to Brussels.
English language schools are in the process of being established in anticipation of the influx of United Kingdom employees who go to the European Community from 1st January, that is all within the framework of the EEC and the Community treaties. No decision has yet been taken whether, as a matter of policy, we should support some of the other British schools that may well need support in order to keep up with our Community neighbours.
I hope, therefore, that we shall have an opportunity to devise a scheme for following these matters through. They are important. I was very pleased that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) gave such an unqualified approval to the work of these schools, since they are, by definition, likely to receive support from the Government, possibly by way of a direct grant, and they are fee-charging schools. That is a remarkable


conversion, upon which I congratulate the right hon. Member.

12.46 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I had not intended to intervene in the debate and would not have done so had I not been shocked into making a short intervention by the speech by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins). He apparently fears the consequences of having on English soil schools which use foreign methods of education and which teach in foreign languages by methods other than those to which we are accustomed. I would have thought that that could only be a matter for which we would have the greatest welcome.
Many foreign schools in London have already made a great contribution to education in the capital and in this country. There is the Lycée Francais de Londres, where thousands of English children have received a first-class education and have learned to speak French fluently, so that they can use it in their professions and in their lives. They have thus been able to contribute to what I believe to be vital for the future of the EEC—the cross-fertilisation of our cultures. A German lycée is to be established, and I believe that there is already an Italian lycée. The success of the French lycée shows the successful future which may well await the European School for the Community, should it be established in our capital.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) said about our contribution to such schools abroad. One great success of the French has been in the dissemination of their culture throughout the world, through the medium of French lycées established in all the great capitals. This is a sphere in which the British have lagged far behind. I hope that we shall make our contribution not only in the establishment of British schools abroad but also to the European School, where-ever it may be established in the Community.
I have one word to add about Statutory Instrument No. 1590 on the enforcement of Community judgments. I commend it for its simplicity and directness, and for the way in which it will

enable the courts in Britain and the executive powers here to enforce judgments at the Community Court. It seems an admirable example of subordinate legislation made now that we are becoming members of the European Community.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. John Davies: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I answered some of the points raised in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked me which of the two procedures would normally be adopted. We appreciated the difficulties of deciding criteria. I shall be guided by the general inference of the debate on the Act, when the emphasis was given by Ministers always to err—if that is the correct word—on the side of more extensively rather than less extensively consulting the House. That will be the guideline we shall wish to use, as it would be in the treatment of any of these matters. As to the use of subordinate legislation as against primary legislation, to the extent that there was any erring at all it would be on the side of treating matters as marginally more important than less important than they merited.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible to indicate the extent to which orders of this kind were in supplementation of regulations or in implementation of directives. I entirely understand his interest, and sympathise with it. In many cases the position will be evident from the nature of the order in question. The matter will be greatly facilitated when the House decides by precisely what means it proposes to review the preparation of policies within the framework of the Community. The House will then have considerable forewarning of what takes place in that scrutiny.

Mr. Shore: I have before me one of the orders—the one on taxes—to which we did not refer earlier. It is Statutory Instrument No. 1589. It refers simply to the changes that would now be required for the non-imposition of stamp duty on certain loan stocks of the European Investment Bank, and so on. But there is no reference to the original Community regulation. That is something that could easily be set right. It would


enable us to detect the original source of legislation quite easily.

Mr. Davies: I entirely sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall give careful consideration to his suggestion.
The right hon. Gentleman's third question was why the European School Statute—and the European School then dominated the rest of the debate—should not be treated as if it were a treaty under Section 1 of the Act. The answer is that the purpose of the order is strictly limited. Broadly speaking, the adoption of the statute of the European School is something that has taken place in exactly the framework to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. But there is a particular issue in relation to the school which perhaps answers a number of questions raised in the debate. It is that it is necessary, by a method of domestic legislation, to give a legal personality to the school. This is required under Article 6 of the statute, which says that the school shall, in the law of each of the contracted parties, have the status of a public institution; that it shall be endowed with the status of a legal personality to the extent requisite for the attainment of its objects. That is precisely the point to which the order refers. Therefore, broadly speaking it does not refer to the adoption of the statute itself but to the creation of a legal personality, which needs an instrument of the kind provided in the order. That is the reason for the way in which it is here presented.
The extensive discussion on the quality of the schools, and the list of the European schools—of which there are six—and of other schools, including the International Lycée, was of great interest, and I will not fail to bring the comments made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Having regard to the narrow term of the order, which relates solely to the rather technical issue to which I have referred, the consideration of the merits or demerits of the schools lies outwith the matters with which the order is concerned. I entirely understand and sympathise with the wish to have the means of discussion of the matters to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) referred, and I hope

that the means will be provided for them to be discussed deeply and thoroughly on their merits, as they should be.
I hope that the House will accept the Motion for the adoption of this designation order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the European Communities (Designation) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adojurn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

LIVINGSTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CHAIRMANSHIP)

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It should be put on record that the Secretary of State was asked to consider whether he should be present for this debate, as his discretion is one of the issues involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I raise the question of the chairmanship of Livingston Development Corporation as a matter of more than parochial significance to Scotland. We are concerned about future appointments at places like Glenrothes. In ascending order of importance I shall raise four issues which emerge from our protracted correspondence with the Secretary of State.
First, there is the manner and style of Mr. Taylor's removal. If the Minister were the vice-chairman of a company, what would his human reaction be if, when he were browsing through his morning newspaper, he saw the appointment of a new chairman, whose name was unknown to him? That is precisely what Scottish Ministers did to Mr. William Geddes. It was precisely what they did to the county conveners of Midlothian and West Lothian and to the other members of the board, with the exception of one. Are they sensitive to setting the example of the Philistine in the treatment of human beings?
It is no good saying that that is the way it is always done. My right hon.


Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) took a great deal of informal trouble over people and consultations. Under the Labour Government the very least that happened was that all those concerned in Scotland—and in England—were contacted by senior civil servants. Yet on this occasion not so much as a scribble arrived on the desk of any of those who were concerned with the board—either from a Minister or from a senior civil servant—on the morning of the Press announcement, or after. It is offensive to board members not to trust them to be told at least 48 hours before. This boorishness is vulgar, and a cause of shame. We hope to hear plans for the improvement in the style of Scottish Ministers.
Secondly, it would not be an unfair summary of the Secretary of State's explanation for not renewing William Taylor's appointment to say that it was "time for a change". That means one of three things; either it is frivolous to a degree to get rid of a chairman who is a widely acclaimed success at the moment of the appointment of a general manager new to new towns and new to local government; or the explanation is untrue; or it is an incomplete explanation. Which is it? Were there other reasons for the non-renewal of the appointment? If so, what were they? On account of the circumstances which are well known to the Minister, Mr. Taylor did much more than might otherwise have been the case.
Thirdly, I must raise one question about Mr. Taylor's successor. In most jobs those who go to the top of important trees have some apprenticeship or training. Whereas the appointee might have been very welcome as a member of the board, is it right that without new town experience and without local government experience he should be spatchcocked in as chairman? New Members of Parliament do not normally become Secretaries of State overnight. Because of the absence of the democratic element, the relationships between a new town board and the local people are by nature difficult, and intrinsically difficult once the population of a new town reaches a critical size of between 15,000 to 25,000.
The new appointee is a newcomer to the rough and tumble of democracy. Would it be unfair to assert that before an uninitiated man can play a useful rôle as chairman of a new town he would have to be in the job for 18 months to two years? This is a fairly widespread opinion. My interest is to have a strong, independent chairman, not over-dependent on his excellent staff and not at too much of a disadvantage to Scottish Office civil servants, for whom change in a major appointment is an ally.
Fourth, I want to express my considered view on the politics of this distasteful affair. What I think is true is that there was a feeling that the Labour Party had been responsible for getting rid of Sir David Lowe, the previous chairman, because he was a Tory and, tit for tat, the Labour Party would be taught a lesson. There are two answers to this. First, his Conservative politics were not the reason for Sir David Lowe leaving Livingston. Whatever anyone says about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, no one can deny that he was scrupulously fair over appointments.
Second, probably through little fault of his, Sir David was chairman when the contracts position of the new town got into a muck-up. A little before he died I asked the late Brigadier Arthur Purches why on earth, in the early 1960s, Livingston had gone to a small firm North of the Tay to carry out the main prestige contract in Central Scotland.
He said—and I believe him—that the design was good. I do not deny this. He said, secondly, that against his better judgment the Scottish Development Department pressed him to go for Pert's. It was predictable, and was predicted by me at the time, that it would go bankrupt. This did not entail any great foresight; it was simply a matter of looking at the capital structure of the company. It did go bankrupt, Livingston was damaged, and William Taylor was the man who sorted out the mess. I care far too much for the good of Livingston to sit on the sidelines while Scottish Conservative Ministers create the conditions for a second muck-up. "Once bitten, twice shy."
I always take the strongest arguments of those who disagree with me. In his letter of 26th September to my hon.


Friend the Member for Midlothian and I the Prime Minister said:
I have for several years been convinced that one of the greatest needs of Scotland was to draw new and able people of varied experience into the different walks of public life.
In the context of Livingston in 1972 I simply say that the issue is not whether we want fresh faces. I might have agreed that the new chairman would have been a valuable member of the board. The issue is whether we substitute, in the chair, for a man of proven experience, who has cleared up a mess, one who is four years older and yet to be proven in the rough and tumble of a public post?

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It would have been politic if the Secretary of State for Scotland had been on the Government Front Bench this morning.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this Adjournment debate. It was a joint exercise. Both of us applied, but convention debarred an application by two hon. Members on the same subject. I understand that my wording was deemed to be more appropriate, and we agreed that I should withdraw and that my wording should stand in my hon. Friend's name. I think that that is generally described as a happy compromise. To apply for such an Adjournment debate gives neither of us a great deal of pleasure, for it is an episode which will have distinct rumbles of discontent and suspicion for a very long time.
I wish to state at the outset that the Secretary of State has extended great personal courtesy to me. I recall clearly that when a problem arose concerning Livingston new town, despite the tremendous burdens that his office holds he met me almost immediately and—this must be recorded—acted with an expedition that did credit to both himself and his office.
In the long struggle that I had to gain full development status for the new town—battling at times in what I was beginning to think was a lone fight—I was always assured that the facts of the case and nothing else would be considered.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I recorded this in an article to the Press, for I sent him a copy. This makes the decision of the chairmanship of Livingston new town all the more inexplicable, for it did not fit the form of the right hon. Gentleman.
Conclusions have been reached—my hon. Friend referred to this matter—that some outside agency had a hand in this decision. It has been suggested, for example, that the Scottish Conservative Central Office had a voice in it.
The appointed chairman, Mr. Misselbrook, is frankly an unknown. Does he owe his appointment to the fact that he subscribes to the general philosophy of the Tory Party? On qualification and age he is not impressive. Company directors have no special edge over anyone else for such a job, neither should they be debarred; but 59 is rather late in the day to be pitchforked to the head without even serving an apprenticeship on the town board. To be on such a board is not like being a director of a company. One is dealing with people in relation to matters that sometimes involved their full wellbeing. Incidentally, people are not impressed that he will do the job without salary, according to Press reports, and I am not impressed.
If nothing else emerges from this debate I hope that the Minister will give adequate and satisfactory answers to these conclusions, suggestions and assertions, and that they will be clearly refuted.
The appointment was a gross insult to members already serving on the board. Not one was thought fit to be promoted to the chairmanship. I am surprised that there has not been a mass resignation, for the only inkling they had of the appointment was when they read about it in the morning newspaper.
I must tell the House that it is already beginning to appear that there is a lack of direction at Livingston new town. The local paper, Livingston Post, on 19th November, describing a "veil of secrecy" surrounding activities in the town, reported:
A 'veil of secrecy' surrounded the arrival last week of the first Ugandan Asian families into Livingston New Town. Unlike most other housing authorities throughout the country, the community at large has been given no opportunity to welcome the Asians who had been thrown out of their own country.


Secondly, it stated:
Councillors in Livingston this week protested that they had been treated with 'contempt' by Livingston Development Corporation over the arrival of the first Ugandan Asian families into the New Town.
and, thirdly, it stated:
It was not until Thursday before they found out and even then they were unable to secure information from the Corporation as to their whereabouts.
On Thursday evening, during heavy rain, the two councillors searched the area in an endeavour to find them.
Eventually they tracked down the two families.
One of the councillors remarked:
They made us most welcome. We did not stay very long, but we felt it was our duty as their elected representatives to make an effort to find them and talk to them.
Probably the most fatuous remark was made by the planner of the corporation, who said:
It is not the normal practice to inform local elected councillors of those who are coming to live in the town and there is no reason to depart from this procedure.
He later said:
The arrival of the two Asian families in Livingston is not being treated with secrecy, but with the normal confidentiality that is given to all persons who come to reside in the town.
It is not the practice of the Corporation to divulge any person's private affairs.
I suggest that it is time some political direction, or direction of some kind, was given in the new town. If the chairman is to remain very long he must take a grip of the situation and realise that corporation boards must subscribe to elementary democratic concepts. The elected representatives of the people must not be treated as lepers.
What about the retired chairman? I have been critical of the board in the past. Since my election as a Member of Parliament I have become closely involved in the new town. Despite having an electorate of 85,500—which is twice the electorate of the Under-Secretary of State, and probably three times the electorate of the Secretary of State for Scotland—proportionately I have probably devoted more time to the new town. I have led several deputations to the corporation board. They were frank, can. did and critical meetings.
I have been no slavish admirer of the board, or its chairman. But the people of Livingston are generous and considerate people. They acknowledge that they had a good chairman to carry out a very difficult job with a skill born of ability and experience. Representatives of the church testify to that effect. They were shocked and horrified at the decision to replace Mr. Taylor.
The Secretary of State has paid public tribute to Mr. Taylor, and so he should. He was a man who, without question, could have been Lord Provost of Glasgow, but he resigned from Glasgow Town Council to devote himself to the work of the new town. He undoubtedly neglected his legal practice. I understand that a suggestion has been made that he could have left with greater dignity. That is a gross slander. He never uttered a word of protest, although he felt keenly about it. Indeed, the only man that emerges from the whole saga with dignity is Mr. Taylor. He deserves better.
In a new town people come with little to invest, in a financial sense, but they come with a greater stake; they come prepared to invest their whole life. I have great doubts whether the appointee of the Secretary of State will ever have time to learn this great truth.

1.14 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I congratulate the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on raising this subject, and I am glad to have the opportunity of putting some of the facts straight. I recognise that both hon. Gentlemen feel strongly about this matter; they have made that clear, and they are entitled and right to do so. They will not mind if I put as plainly as I can the other side of the picture and try to explain why this change was made and to answer the points which the hon. Gentlemen have made in their correspondence and tonight.
I want to make it clear that Parliament decided that the Secretary of State should make these appointments and, although it is absolutely right that other people—particularly Members of Parliament—should be free and welcome to express their views, it is the Secretary of State who has that responsibility. He


must—whoever he is, and whatever his party—be free to make these appointments in the way which sems to him best in all the circumstances. My right hon. Friend has done that. He feels that what he did was right, and I thoroughly agree with him.
The hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned that my right hon. Friend is not present to answer this debate. I appreciate his point, and I am grateful to him for putting it so straightforwardly. But I am sure that he, having been a Member longer than I, will realise that it is a very rare event for a Secretary of State to answer an Adjournment debate, and that my right hon. Friend has in no way departed from tradition by asking me to reply in his place. I am glad to do so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as a reasonable explanation, even if he wishes that my right hon. Friend had been there. I have tried to find a precedent for a Secretary of State's answering an Adjournment debate. There have been some, but they are very rare, and it is difficult to find them.

Mr. Dalyell: Willie Whitelaw, as Lord President.

Mr. Younger: These appointments are not of people who should represent particular interests or particular bodies; they are personal appointments. People are appointed for their personal qualities. That has always been so, under all Administrations, and it was so in this case. The development of a new town is complex. A wide range of experience and background knowledge must be brought to bear on many problems. People are appointed not only because of their personal qualities but because of the contribution which the Secretary of State thinks they can make to the work of the corporation. The Secretary of State must have freedom to make these appointments in the way that he thinks best.
It is a perfectly respectable argument to say that it is not right that one should have a change every now and again in the chairmanship of a new town. The hon. Member for West Lothian is entitled to say that he thinks that a change should not have been made in this case. My right hon. Friend and I feel that it was an appropriate time to make a change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will

explain. My right hon. Friend and I thought that it was an appropriate time to make a change in this case so that a new range of experience and qualities could be brought to the job of running the corporation.
No one—and I know that Mr. Taylor entirely accepts this—would expect to be appointed to one of these positions and remain in it for ever. No one expects to he appointed to position of this sort for life.

Mr. Dalyell: That is not the argument. The Minister knows it full well.

Mr. Younger: Everyone accepts—and Mr. Taylor has publicly accepted—that his appointment was up for review, and everyone appointed to positions in the new towns or any other body knows that the Secretary of State can make a change at any time. The hon. Member for West Lothian referred to the case of Sir David Lowe. I do not propose to refer to it; it is very much history.
But whoever was in my position at the time made no representations, because the previous Secretary of State made a change then.

Mr. Dalyell: He would have been unwise not to.

Mr. Younger: This is a matter of personal appointment, which is how it must remain.
The hon. Member for West Lothian has said that he is strongly opposed to some matters, but I must make one point clear because, inadvertently, the controversy which this matter has caused may have led some people to feel that genuine criticism could be made of Mr. Taylor's performance. I make it absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend has made clear in correspondence, that my right hon. Friend and I have nothing but appreciation of the valuable work done by Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Dalyell: Then you must be out of your mind.

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman will listen courteously to my side, it will be a great help.
We thoroughly appreciate Mr. Taylor's work, and I would not like anything said now to suggest that he did anything but


a good job. His association with the city of Glasgow, his knowledge of planning, his local authority background and, above all, his understanding of people, led him to do a very excellent job, and I want it to be firmly on record that that is not only my view but the view of my right hon. Friend.
Why, then, the hon. Gentleman will quite understandably ask, make a change? It was the feeling of my right hon. Friend, of myself and of others that Mr. Taylor having done this job for seven years and having been on the corporation for 10 years—and the corporation's work having reached a stage when the planning of the town centre had been more or less completed and was moving to the stage of implementation it would be of general benefit to the corporation to have a person with a new background and a new range of experience and of skills at its head. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and others are quite entitled to disagree with that view, but I must emphasise that just as their opinion is perfectly respectable so is it perfectly respectable for my right hon. Friend to have an opinion on the matter. But the hon. Gentleman must be prepared to listen to the other side of the argument.
The hon. Gentleman has said in his correspondence, and again tonight, that the manner and style of removal was to be regretted. I will look very carefully at what he has said about that, but precisely the same procedure was followed in this case as in every other case where there has been a change of chairman either under this or the previous Administration.

Mr. Dalyell: Not true!

Mr. Younger: That is my information. But I attach importance to courtesy in these matters, and I will look very carefully at what he has said.

Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful!

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman stated that to say it was time for a change was purely frivolous. I do not accept that view, and I am afraid that here we will get no nearer to proving whether he or my right hon. Friend is right. It is a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State of the day. His is the decision, and he has the money provided out of public funds. I cannot accept that the hon.

Gentleman is necessarily right and that my right hon. Friend is necessarily wrong.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman said that an apprenticeship was needed. It is not necessarily the case that only a person with long experience of the running of new towns—

Mr. Dalyell: "Some" experience.

Mr. Younger: —and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) himself appointed a very excellent person, Mr. George Wallace, as chairman of East Kilbride. Mr. Wallace is doing an excellent job, but I understand that he has had no previous local authority experience and no previous experience of being on a new town corporation.

Mr. William Ross: I am here because this is not the first time that I have been quite unnecessarily brought into the argument. I would rather the Secretary of State had been here to answer the debate himself, and in respect of appointments to stand on his own feet. Mr. George Wallace was appointed after I had known of some of his public work. I had appointed him to the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and the reports I had from there were such that at the stage of impending changes at East Kilbride I was convinced that it was right to appoint him to East Kilbride.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. He thought that Mr. George Wallace was a good person, and he was quite right to make the appointment. The hon. Gentleman maintains that the appointment was wrong partly because Mr. Misselbrook had not had previous experience of local government, and I do not agree. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong there.
Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman referred to Sir David Lowe. I shall not go into that question now, because it is very much past history. I end by saying that any suggestion of political motivation here is quite groundless. No such consideration is or has been brought in under this or the previous Administration on this matter. Thre is no such consideration in this.
I do not know what Mr. Misselbrook's politics are, nor do I think that Mr. Taylor ever brought his politics into the new town. In any case, he was originally


appointed by a Conservative Administration and not a Labour one, so I absolutely reject the idea that there was any political motivation. I should thoroughly abhor it if there had been, and there never should be in these appointments. I wish to make that clear.
I sum up by saying that I respect the sincerity of hon. Members in this matter but do not agree that it was self-evident that Mr. Misselbrook needed previous local government or new town experience. He has business experience, and many fine qualities. I hope that all of us will now

regard this as a chapter which is past and will do all we can to help him to do an excellent job and to follow the splendid work of Mr. Taylor for nearly 10 years in the Livingston new town area.
I am sure that the net result of this—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past One o'clock.